OFFSHORE OIL & GAS LICENSING 29TH SEAWARD ROUND Habitats Regulations Assessment Stage 1 – Block and Site Screenings

November 2016

© Crown copyright 2016

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.

To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]

Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Contents

1 Introduction ______1 1.1 Background and overview of plan ______1 1.2 Purpose ______2 1.3 Approach to screening ______2 2 Blocks offered and potential activities ______4 2.1 Blocks offered ______4 2.2 Licensing ______4 2.3 Activity ______6 3 Relevant Natura 2000 sites ______15 4 Screening Assessment Process ______19 4.1 Introduction ______19 4.2 Sources of effect considered in this screening ______19 4.3 Physical disturbance and drilling effects ______22 4.4 Underwater noise ______26 4.5 Consideration of mobile species ______29 4.6 In-combination effects ______33 5 Screening ______35 5.1 Screening of potential effects of 29th Round Block activities ______35 5.2 Screening for potential in-combination effects ______36 6 Conclusion ______53 7 References ______55 Appendix A – The Designated Sites ______60 A1 Introduction ______61 A2 Coastal and Marine Special Protection Areas ______62 A3 Coastal and marine Special Areas of Conservation ______77 A4 Offshore Special Areas of Conservation ______87 A5 Riverine and Freshwater Special Areas of Conservation ______88 A6 Sites in waters of other member states ______89 A7 Ramsar sites ______91 Appendix B – Blocks and sites screened in ______94

i Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

B1 Introduction ______95 B2 Physical disturbance and drilling ______96 B3 Underwater noise ______99

ii Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and overview of plan

The plan/programme covering this and future seaward licensing rounds has been subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (OESEA3), completed in July 2016. The SEA Environmental Report includes detailed consideration of the status of the natural environment and potential effects of the range of activities which could follow licensing, including potential effects on conservation sites. The SEA Environmental Report was subject to an 8 week public consultation period following which a post-consultation report was produced. The post- consultation report summarises the comments received and provides further clarifications which has enabled the decision to adopt the plan/programme. This decision has allowed the Oil & Gas Authority (OGA) to progress with further seaward oil and gas licensing rounds. As a result, the OGA is offering 1,246 Blocks for licensing as part of a 29th Seaward Licensing Round covering underexplored frontier areas of the UK continental shelf (UKCS).

The exclusive rights to search and bore for petroleum in Great Britain, the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom and on the UKCS are vested in the Crown and the Petroleum Act 1998 (as amended) gives the OGA the power to grant licences to explore for and exploit these resources. Offshore licensing for oil and gas exploration and production commenced in 1964 and progressed through a series of Seaward Licensing Rounds. A Seaward Production Licence grants exclusive rights to the holders “to search and bore for, and get, petroleum” in the area covered by the Licence but does not constitute any form of approval for activities to take place in the Blocks, nor does it confer any exemption from other legal or regulatory requirements. Offshore activities are subject to a range of statutory permitting and consenting requirements, including, where relevant, activity specific Appropriate Assessment (AA) under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EC).

The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 (as amended) (OPAR 2001) implement the requirements of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive with respect to oil and gas activities in UK territorial waters and on the UK Continental Shelf; and for other relevant activities in offshore waters (i.e. excluding territorial waters) this is covered by the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended). Within territorial waters, the Habitats Directive is transposed into UK law via the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 in England and Wales, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in Scotland (for non-reserved matters), and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended) in Northern Ireland.

1 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

1.2 Purpose

As the petroleum licensing aspects of the plan/programme are not directly connected with or necessary for nature conservation management of European (Natura 2000) sites, to comply with its obligations under the relevant regulations, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS, formerly the Department of Energy and Climate Change) is undertaking a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)1.

In this HRA, the Department has applied the Habitats Directive test2 (elucidated by the European Court of Justice in the case of Waddenzee (Case C-127/02)3) which test is:

A plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site must be subject to an AA if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.

Where a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is likely to undermine the site’s conservation objectives, it must be considered likely to have a significant effect on that site. The assessment of that risk must be made in the light, inter alia, of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by such a plan or project.

1.3 Approach to screening

This screening assessment is the first stage of the HRA to determine whether licensing of any of the Blocks offered in the 29th Round may have a significant effect on a relevant site, either individually or in combination4 with other plans or projects. The screening assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the European Commission Guidance (EC 2000) and with reference to other guidance and reports, including the Habitats Regulations Guidance Notes (EN 1997, Defra 2012, SEERAD 2000), SNH (2015), the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 20125) and English Nature Research report, No. 704 (Hoskin & Tyldesley 2006).

The approach taken to screening has been to identify all relevant European sites with the potential to be affected by exploration/appraisal activities that could follow licensing (i.e. those

1 Note that while certain licensing and related regulatory functions have been passed to the OGA, environmental regulatory functions are retained by BEIS, and are administered by the Offshore Oil and Gas Environment and Decommissioning Team (OGED). 2 See Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. 3 Also see the Advocate General’s Opinion in the recent ‘Sweetman’ case (Case C-258/11), which confirms those principles set out in the Waddenzee judgement. 4 Note that “in-combination” and “cumulative” effects have similar meanings, but for the purposes of HRA, and in keeping with the wording of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, “in-combination” is used to describe the potential for such effects throughout. More information on the definitions of “cumulative” and “in-combination” effects are available in MMO (2014) and Judd et al. (2015). 5 Which states that “listed or proposed Ramsar sites”, should receive the same protection as European sites

2 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

sites with marine qualifying features or with a marine ecological linkage such as anadromous and catadromous fish) (see Section 3). These sites are screened for the likelihood of significant effects based on the nature and scale of potential activities (as outlined in Section 2). Consideration is also given as appropriate to the site specific advice on operations. Those Blocks which are screened in will be subject to a second stage of HRA, Appropriate Assessment, before licensing decisions are taken.

This screening assessment report is organised as follows:

 Overview of the plan, including a list and map of the Blocks offered, summary of the licensing process and nature of the activities that could follow (see Section 2)

 Identification of all European sites potentially affected, together with their various interest features (Section 3 and Appendix A)

 Description of the screening assessment process used to identify likely significant effects on relevant European sites (Section 4)

 The screening assessment including a consideration of in-combination effects (Section 5 and Appendix B)

 Summary of conclusions including list of Blocks from which likely significant effects on relevant European sites could not be discounted at the screening stage and for which further assessment (Appropriate Assessment) is required before licensing decisions are made (Section 6)

As part of this process, BEIS has consulted with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) on a draft of this screening assessment.

3 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

2 Blocks offered and potential activities

2.1 Blocks offered

Offshore Blocks on offer during the 29th Seaward Licensing Round which are considered in this screening assessment are listed in Table 2.1 and shown on Figure 2.1. Note that many of these Blocks have not been licensed previously. The Blocks are located in frontier areas to the west of Scotland, in the northern North Sea and in the Mid North Sea High, in which relatively less exploration has taken place than in other areas. The OGA undertook two regional seismic surveys in 2015 covering the Mid North Sea High and Rockall Basin, the results of which augment existing data and update current understanding of prospectivity to inform future licensing, in particular this 29th Seaward Licensing Round. The OGA has released almost 40,000 line kilometres of new and legacy seismic data from the Rockall Basin and Mid-North Sea High areas acquired during the 2015 seismic survey6.

2.2 Licensing

The exclusive rights to search and bore for and get petroleum in the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom and on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) are vested in the Crown and the Petroleum Act 1998 (as amended) gives the OGA the power to grant licences to explore for and exploit these resources. The main type of offshore Licence is the Seaward Production Licence. Offshore licensing for oil and gas exploration and production commenced in 1964 and has progressed through a series of Seaward Licensing Rounds. A Seaward Production Licence may cover the whole or part of a specified Block or a group of Blocks. A Seaward Production Licence grants exclusive rights to the holders “to search and bore for, and get, petroleum” in the area covered by the Licence but does not constitute any form of approval for activities to take place in the Blocks, nor does it confer any exemption from other legal or regulatory requirements.

Several sub-types of Seaward Production Licence were available in previous rounds (Traditional, Frontier and Promote). These licences have now been superseded by the “Innovate” licence, within which, for the 29th Round, the clauses of previous licences7 may still be applied but within the structure of a single licence type8.

6 https://www.ukoilandgasdata.com 7 The Model Clauses that apply for Seaward Production Licences are set out in the Petroleum Licensing (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 2008. These set out the terms and conditions that apply to such licences. (Other regulations, including environmental regulations for offshore oil and gas activities, also apply to licensees.) A number of proposed Innovate licence features require changes to Model Clauses which are yet to

4 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

As per previous licensing structures, the Innovate licence is made up of three terms covering exploration (Initial Term), appraisal and field development planning (Second Term), and development and production (Third Term). The lengths of the first two terms are flexible, but have a maximum duration of 9 and 6 years respectively. The Third Term is granted for 18 years but may be extended if production continues beyond this period. The Innovate licence introduces three Phases to the Initial Term, covering:

 Phase A: geotechnical studies and geophysical data reprocessing (note that the acquisition of new seismic could take place in this phase for the purpose of defining a 3D survey as part of Phase B, but normally this phase will not involve activities in the field)

 Phase B: shooting of new seismic and other geophysical data

 Phase C: exploration and appraisal drilling

Applicants have the flexibility to choose the Phase that they wish to initially apply for, the phase combinations they wish to undertake, and the duration of these Phases. For example all phases may be undertaken or a combination of selected phases, or in some instances where it can be demonstrated that no exploration is required (e.g. development of an existing discovery or field re-development), licence award would go straight to the Second Term. Applicants may choose to spend up to 4 years on a single Phase in the Initial Term, but cannot take more than 9 years to progress to the Second Term. A firm commitment to drill a well will normally only be considered for applicants who propose to start at Phase C (i.e. at the point where the drilling decision does not require any more analysis).

The phased approach allows for a decision to be made on whether to proceed to the next phase within the Initial Term. Whilst there is no mandatory requirement to relinquish licences at the end of Phases A and B for the 29th Round, the OGA recommend that any area not being actively worked on should be relinquished. Annual updates on work programme progress will be required, in addition to dialogue with OGA no later than three months before the end of each Phase.

Financial viability and technical capability are considered prior to licence award for applicants proposing to start at Phase A or B, but further technical and financial capacity for Phase C activities would need to be demonstrated before the licence could enter Phase C and drilling could commence. If the applicant proposes to start the licence at Phase C or go straight to the Second Term, it must demonstrate it has the technical competence to carry out the activities that would be permitted under the licence during that term, and the financial capacity to complete the Work Programme, before the licence is granted. It is noted that the safety and environmental capability (e.g. requirements of the Offshore Safety Directive) and track record of applicants is considered by the OGA through written submissions before licences are be subject to relevant regulatory processes. These are anticipated to be in place, subject to consultation and Parliamentary process, for subsequent seaward Rounds. 8 Refer to OGA guidance on applications for the 29th Round at: https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/licensing- consents/licensing-rounds/

5 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment awarded9. Where full details cannot be provided via the written submissions at the application stage, licensees must provide supplementary submissions that address any outstanding environmental and safety requirements before approvals for specific offshore activities such as drilling will be issued.

2.3 Activity

As part of the licence application process, applicants provide the OGA with details of work programmes they propose in the Initial Term. These work programmes are considered with a range of other factors in the OGA’s decision on whether to license the Blocks and to whom. There are three levels of drilling commitment:

 A Firm Drilling Commitment is a commitment to the OGA to drill a well. Firm drilling commitments are preferred on the basis that, if there were no such commitment, the OGA could not be certain that potential licensees would make full use of their licences. However, the fact that a licensee has been awarded a licence on the basis of a “firm commitment” to undertake a specific activity should not be taken as meaning that the licensee will actually be able to carry out that activity. This will depend upon the outcome of all relevant activity specific environmental assessments.

 A Contingent Drilling Commitment is also a commitment to the OGA to drill a well, but it includes specific provision for the OGA to waive the commitment in light of further technical information.

 A Drill or Drop (D/D) Drilling Commitment is a conditional commitment with the proviso that the licence is relinquished if a well is not drilled.

Note that Drill-or-Drop and Contingent work programmes (subject to further studies by the licensees) will probably result in a well being drilled in less than 50% of the cases.

9 Refer to OGA technical guidance and safety and environmental guidance on applications for the 29th Round at: https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/licensing-consents/licensing-rounds/

6 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Table 2.1: List of Blocks offered in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round

West of Scotland 128/1 133/8 139/8 141/29 150/4 153/2 156/8 160/25 163/16 166/19 128/2 133/9 139/9 141/30 150/5 153/3 156/9 160/26 163/17 166/20 128/3 133/10 139/10 142/1 150/6 153/4 156/10 160/27 163/18 166/21 128/4 133/11 139/11 142/2 150/7 153/5 156/11 160/28 163/19 166/22 128/5 133/12 139/12 142/6 150/8 153/6 156/12 160/29 163/20 166/23 128/6 133/13 139/13 142/7 150/9 153/7 156/13 160/30 163/21 166/24 128/7 133/14 139/14 142/11 150/10 153/8 156/14 161/1 163/22 166/25 128/8 133/15 139/15 142/12 150/11 153/9 156/15 161/2 163/23 166/26 128/9 133/16 139/16 142/16 150/12 153/10 158/2 161/3 163/24 166/27 128/10 133/17 139/17 142/17 150/13 153/11 158/3 161/4 163/25 166/28 129/1 133/18 139/18 142/21 150/14 153/12 158/4 161/5 163/26 166/29 129/2 133/19 139/19 142/22 150/15 153/13 158/5 161/6 163/27 166/30 129/3 133/20 139/20 142/26 150/16 153/14 158/7 161/7 163/28 168/30 129/4 133/21 139/21 142/27 150/17 153/15 158/8 161/8 163/29 169/26 129/5 133/22 139/22 142/28 150/18 153/16 158/9 161/9 163/30 169/27 129/6 133/23 139/23 142/29 150/19 153/17 158/10 161/10 164/1 169/28 129/7 133/24 139/24 142/30 150/20 153/18 158/11 161/11 164/2 169/29 129/8 133/25 139/25 143/26 150/21 153/19 158/12 161/12 164/3 169/30 129/9 133/27 139/26 148/1 150/22 153/20 158/13 161/13 164/4 170/26 129/10 133/28 139/27 148/2 150/23 153/21 158/14 161/14 164/5 170/27 129/15 133/29 139/28 148/3 150/24 153/22 158/15 161/15 164/6 170/28 130/1 133/30 139/29 148/4 150/25 153/23 158/16 161/16 164/7 170/29 130/2 134/6 139/30 148/5 150/26 153/24 158/17 161/17 164/8 170/30 130/3 134/7 140/1 148/6 150/27 153/25 158/18 161/18 164/9 171/26 130/4 134/8 140/2 148/7 150/28 153/29 158/21 161/19 164/10 171/27 130/5 134/11 140/3 148/8 150/29 153/30 158/22 161/20 164/11 171/28 130/6 134/12 140/4 148/9 150/30 154/4 158/23 161/21 164/12 171/29 130/7 134/13 140/5 148/10 151/1 154/5 158/24 161/22 164/13 171/30 130/8 134/14 140/6 148/11 151/2 154/6 158/26 161/23 164/14 173/28 130/9 134/16 140/7 148/12 151/3 154/7 158/27 161/24 164/15 173/29 130/10 134/17 140/8 148/13 151/4 154/8 158/28 161/25 164/16 173/30 130/11 134/18 140/9 148/14 151/5 154/9 158/29 161/26 164/17 174/26 130/12 134/19 140/10 148/15 151/6 154/10 159/1 161/27 164/20 174/27 130/13 134/20 140/11 148/16 151/7 154/11 159/2 161/28 164/21 174/28 130/14 134/21 140/12 148/17 151/8 154/12 159/3 161/29 164/22 174/29 130/15 134/22 140/13 148/18 151/9 154/13 159/4 161/30 164/25 174/30 131/1 134/23 140/14 148/19 151/10 154/14 159/5 162/1 164/26 175/21 131/2 134/24 140/15 148/20 151/11 154/15 159/6 162/2 164/27 175/22 131/3 134/25 140/16 148/21 151/12 154/16 159/7 162/3 164/30 175/23 131/4 134/26 140/17 148/22 151/13 154/17 159/8 162/4 165/1 175/24 131/5 134/27 140/18 148/23 151/14 154/18 159/9 162/5 165/2 175/25 131/6 134/28 140/19 148/24 151/15 154/19 159/10 162/6 165/3 175/26 131/7 134/29 140/20 148/25 151/16 154/20 159/11 162/7 165/4 175/27

7 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

131/8 134/30 140/21 148/26 151/17 154/21 159/12 162/8 165/6 175/28 131/9 138/1 140/22 148/27 151/18 154/22 159/13 162/9 165/7 176/20 131/10 138/2 140/23 148/28 151/19 154/23 159/14 162/10 165/8 176/21 131/11 138/3 140/24 148/29 151/20 154/24 159/15 162/11 165/9 176/22 131/12 138/4 140/25 148/30 151/21 154/25 159/17 162/12 165/10 176/23 131/13 138/5 140/26 149/1 151/22 154/26 159/18 162/13 165/11 176/24 131/14 138/6 140/27 149/2 151/23 154/27 159/19 162/14 165/12 176/25 131/15 138/7 140/28 149/3 151/24 154/28 159/20 162/15 165/13 176/27 131/18 138/8 140/29 149/4 151/25 154/29 159/23 162/16 165/14 176/28 131/19 138/9 140/30 149/5 151/26 154/30 159/24 162/17 165/15 176/29 131/20 138/10 141/1 149/6 151/27 155/1 159/25 162/18 165/16 176/30 132/1 138/11 141/2 149/7 151/28 155/2 159/28 162/19 165/17 202/1 132/2 138/12 141/3 149/8 151/29 155/3 159/29 162/20 165/18 202/2 132/3b 138/13 141/4 149/9 151/30 155/4 159/30 162/21 165/19 202/3 132/4 138/14 141/5 149/10 152/1 155/5 160/1 162/22 165/20 202/4b 132/5 138/15 141/6 149/11 152/2 155/6 160/2 162/23 165/21 202/5b 132/6 138/16 141/7 149/12 152/3 155/7 160/3 162/24 165/22 202/6 132/7 138/17 141/8 149/13 152/4 155/8 160/4 162/25 165/23 202/7 132/9 138/18 141/9 149/14 152/5 155/9 160/5 162/26 165/24 202/8 132/10 138/19 141/10 149/15 152/6 155/10 160/6 162/27 165/25 202/9 132/11 138/20 141/11 149/16 152/7 155/11 160/7 162/28 165/26 202/10 132/12 138/21 141/12 149/17 152/8 155/12 160/8 162/29 165/27 202/11 132/13b 138/22 141/13 149/18 152/9 155/13 160/9 162/30 165/28 204/16 132/14 138/23 141/14 149/19 152/10 155/14 160/10 163/1 165/29 204/17 132/15 138/24 141/15 149/20 152/11 155/15 160/11 163/2 165/30 204/18 132/16 138/25 141/16 149/21 152/12 155/16 160/12 163/3 166/3 204/19c 132/17 138/26 141/17 149/22 152/13 155/17 160/13 163/4 166/4 204/20c 132/18 138/27 141/18 149/23 152/14 155/18 160/14 163/5 166/5 204/21 132/19 138/28 141/19 149/24 152/15 155/19 160/15 163/6 166/6 204/22b 132/20 138/29 141/20 149/25 152/16 155/21 160/16 163/7 166/9 204/23b 132/25 138/30 141/21 149/26 152/17 155/22 160/17 163/8 166/10 204/26 133/1 139/1 141/22 149/27 152/19 156/1 160/18 163/9 166/11 204/27 133/2 139/2 141/23 149/28 152/20 156/2 160/19 163/10 166/12 204/28a 133/3 139/3 141/24 149/29 152/21 156/3 160/20 163/11 166/14 204/28b 133/4 139/4 141/25 149/30 152/22 156/4 160/21 163/12 166/15 204/29b 133/5 139/5 141/26 150/1 152/26 156/5 160/22 163/13 166/16 133/6 139/6 141/27 150/2 152/27 156/6 160/23 163/14 166/17 133/7 139/7 141/28 150/3 153/1 156/7 160/24 163/15 166/18 Northern North Sea 2/3 2/25 3/23 8/10b 9/3c 14/9 15/13b 209/15 210/12 219/16 2/4b 2/28 3/28c 8/13 9/3d 14/10 15/14 209/19 210/13 219/17 2/5b 2/29 7/18 8/16 9/7 14/13 15/15 209/20 210/16 219/18 2/5d 2/30 7/19 8/17 9/8c 14/14 16/1c 209/24 210/17 219/19 2/8 3/1a 7/20 8/18 9/17b 14/15 16/2a 209/25 210/18 219/20 2/9 3/6 7/23 8/19 9/21b 15/1 16/6b 210/1 210/21 219/21 2/10a 3/7c 7/24 8/20 9/22 15/2 16/7c 210/2 210/22 219/22

8 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

2/13 3/8c 7/25 8/21 9/26 15/3 16/7d 210/4a 210/23 219/23b 2/14 3/11c 7/28 8/25 14/2 15/6 16/7e 210/5a 210/28 219/24b 2/15b 3/12 7/29 8/26 14/3 15/7 16/11a 210/5b 218/19 219/26 2/18 3/13b 7/30 8/27 14/4 15/8 16/12b 210/6 218/20 219/27 2/19 3/16 8/3 8/28b 14/5 15/9 16/12c 210/7 218/24 219/28b 2/20 3/17 8/4 9/1a 14/6 15/10 209/9b 210/9a 218/25 220/16 2/23 3/18 8/8 9/2d 14/7 15/11b 209/10b 210/10 218/29 220/21 2/24 3/21 8/9b 9/2e 14/8 15/12c 209/14b 210/11 218/30 220/22 Mid North Sea High 18/30 20/23 26/2 27/7 28/13 34/5 35/16 36/15 37/20 39/17 19/11 20/24 26/3b 27/8 28/14 34/6 35/17 36/16 37/21 39/21 19/12 20/25 26/6 27/9 28/16 34/7 35/18 36/17 37/22 39/26 19/13 20/26 26/11 27/10 28/17 34/8 35/19 36/18 37/23 40/5 19/14 20/27 26/12 27/11 28/18 34/9 35/20 36/19 37/24 41/1 19/16 20/28 26/13b 27/12 28/19 34/10 35/21 36/20 37/25 41/2 19/17 20/29 26/14 27/13 28/21 34/12 35/22 36/21 37/28b 41/3 19/18 20/30 26/15 27/14 28/22 34/13 35/23 36/22 37/29b 41/4 19/19 21/21 26/16 27/15 28/23 34/14 35/24 36/23 37/30 41/9 19/20 21/22 26/17 27/16 28/24 34/15 35/25 36/24 38/6 41/29a 19/21 21/23a 26/18 27/17 28/25 34/17 35/26 36/25 38/9 41/29b 19/22 21/26 26/19 27/18 28/26 34/20 35/27 36/26 38/10b 41/30 19/23 21/27b 26/20 27/19 28/27 34/25 35/28 36/27 38/11 42/2a 19/24 21/28b 26/21 27/20 28/28 34/30 35/29 36/28 38/12 42/8a 19/25 25/4 26/22 27/21 28/29 35/1 35/30 36/29 38/16 42/9a 19/26 25/5 26/23 27/22 28/30 35/2 36/1 37/1 38/17 42/10c 19/27 25/8 26/24 27/23 28/2a 35/3 36/2 37/2 38/21 42/13b 19/28 25/9 26/25 27/24 28/3a 35/4 36/3 37/3 38/22 42/14a 19/29 25/10 26/26 27/25 28/8b 35/5 36/4 37/4 38/23 42/17 19/30 25/13 26/27 27/26 29/21 35/6 36/5 37/6 38/24 42/26 20/13 25/14 26/28 27/27 29/22b 35/7 36/6 37/7 38/25 42/27b 20/14 25/15 26/29 27/28 29/23b 35/8 36/7 37/8 38/26 43/10 20/16 25/18 26/30 27/29 29/26 35/9 36/8 37/11 38/27 44/1 20/17 25/19 27/1b 27/30 29/27 35/10 36/9 37/12 38/28 44/2 20/18 25/20 27/2 28/1 29/28 35/11 36/10 37/13 38/29 44/3 20/19 25/24 27/3 28/6 34/1 35/12 36/11 37/16 38/30 44/4 20/20 25/25 27/4 28/7 34/2 35/13 36/12 37/17 39/6b 44/5 20/21 25/30 27/5 28/11 34/3 35/14 36/13 37/18 39/7b 45/1 20/22 26/1 27/6b 28/12 34/4 35/15 36/14 37/19 39/12

9 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 2.1: Location of Blocks offered in the context of existing licences

10 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

The OGA technical guidance makes it clear that an award of a Production Licence does not automatically allow a licensee to carry out all petroleum-related activities from then on (this includes those activities outlined in initial work programmes, particularly Phases B and C). Activities in the field (see Table 2.2) associated with seismic survey or drilling are subject to relevant activity specific environmental assessments by BEIS, and there are other regulatory provisions exercised by bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive. It is the licensee’s responsibility to be aware of, and comply with, all regulatory controls and legal requirements.

The proposed work programmes for the Initial Term are detailed in the licence applications. For some activities, such as seismic survey noise, the impacts can occur some distance from the licensed Blocks and the degree of activity is not necessarily proportional to the size or number of Blocks in an area. In the case of direct physical disturbance, the licence Blocks being applied for are relevant.

2.3.1 Likely scale of activity This assessment has been undertaken at the stage at which Blocks are offered for licensing. To place the scale of the 29th Round in context, rounds of comparable size (i.e. in terms of number of Blocks offered, such as the 22nd-24th Rounds) have attracted applications for between 16% and 21% of the Blocks offered. On past experience the activity that actually takes place is less than is bid at the licence application stage. A proportion of Blocks awarded may be relinquished without any field activities occurring. Activity after the Initial Term is much harder to predict, as this depends on the results of the initial phase, which is, by definition, exploratory. Typically less than half the wells drilled reveal hydrocarbons, and of that, less than half again will have a potential to progress to development. For example, the OGA analysis of exploration well outcomes from the Moray Firth & Central North Sea between 2003 and 2013 indicated an overall technical success rate of 40% with respect to 150 exploration wells and side-tracks (Mathieu 2015). Depending on the expected size of finds, there may be further drilling to appraise the hydrocarbons (appraisal wells). For context, Figure 2.2 highlights the total number of exploration and appraisal wells started on the UKCS each year since 2000 as well as the number of significant discoveries made (associated with exploration activities).

Discoveries that progress to development may require further development drilling, installation of infrastructure such as wellheads, pipelines and possibly fixed platform production facilities, although recent developments are mostly tiebacks to existing production facilities rather than stand alone developments. For example, of the 55 current projects identified by the OGA’s Project Pathfinder (as of 19th July 2016)10, 26 are planned as subsea tie-backs to existing infrastructure, 8 involve new stand alone production platforms and 10 are likely to be developed via Floating Production, Storage and Offloading facilities (FPSO). The final form of development for many of the remaining projects is not decided, with some undergoing re- evaluation of development options but some are likely to be subsea tie-backs. Figure 2.2 indicates that the number of development wells has declined over time and this pattern is likely

10 https://itportal.decc.gov.uk/eng/fox/path/PATH_REPORTS/pdf

11 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment to continue. The nature and scale of potential environmental impacts from the drilling of development wells are similar to those of exploration and appraisal wells and thus the screening criteria described in Section 4 are applicable to the potential effects of development well drilling within any of the 29th Round Blocks.

Figure 2.2: UKCS Exploration, appraisal & development wells, and significant discoveries since 2000

350

Significant discoveries 300 Exploration wells Appraisal wells 250 Development wells

200

150 Number of wellsofstartedNumber

and significant anddiscoveries 100

50

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Note: The description "significant" generally refers to the flow rates that were achieved (or would have been reached) in well tests (15 mmcfgd or 1000 BOPD). It does not indicate the commercial potential of the discovery. Source: OGA Drilling Activity (October 2016), Significant Offshore Discoveries (August 2016)

12 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

2.3.2 29th Round activities considered by the HRA The nature, extent and timescale of development, if any, which may ultimately result from the licensing of 29th Round Blocks is uncertain, and therefore it is regarded that at this stage a meaningful assessment of development level activity (e.g. pipelay, placement of jackets, subsea templates or floating installations) cannot be made. Moreover, once project plans are in place, subsequent permitting processes relating to exploration, development and decommissioning, would require assessment (including HRA) as appropriate, allowing the opportunity for further mitigation measures to be identified as necessary, and for permits to be refused if necessary. In this way the opinion of the Advocate General in ECJ (European Court of Justice) case C-6/04, on the effects on Natura sites, "must be assessed at every relevant stage of the procedure to the extent possible on the basis of the precision of the plan. This assessment is to be updated with increasing specificity in subsequent stages of the procedure" is addressed. Therefore only activities as part of the work programmes associated with the Initial Term and its associated Phases A-C will be considered in this HRA.

For the purposes of this screening assessment, the implications of geophysical survey and drilling are considered in a generic way for all the Blocks offered; a generic description of the nature and scale of these activities is given in Table 2.2 below. The screening assessment considers:

 The potential disturbance and drilling effects associated with the drilling of an exploration well within each Block offered.

 The potential acoustic disturbance effects associated with undertaking a deep geological seismic survey within each Block offered (as well as undertaking site specific seismic operations including rig site survey and Vertical Seismic Profiling).

 The potential for in-combination effects.

Subsequent Appropriate Assessment (AA) of Blocks for which a likely significant effect cannot currently be excluded will consider a generic approach based on the maximum likely work programme associated with the Initial Term and its associated Phases A-C.

13 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Table 2.2: Indicative overview of potential activities that could arise from Block licensing Potential activity Description Geophysical survey Deep geological 2D seismic involves a survey vessel with a single source and a towed hydrophone streamer (up to 12 km long), containing several seismic (2D and 3D) hydrophones along its length. The reflections from the subsurface strata provide an image in two dimensions (horizontal and vertical). survey Repeated parallel lines are typically run at intervals of several kilometres (minimum ca. 0.5km) and a second set of lines at right angles to the first to form a grid pattern. This allows imaging and interpretation of geological structures and identification of potential hydrocarbon reservoirs.

3D seismic survey is similar but uses more than one source and several hydrophone streamers towed by the survey vessel. Thus closely spaced 2D lines (typically between 25 and 75m apart) can be achieved by a single sail line. These deep-geological surveys tend to cover large areas (300-3000km2) and may take from several days up to several weeks to complete. Typically, large airgun arrays are employed with 12-48 airguns and a total array volume of 3000-8000 in3. Rig site survey Rig site surveys are undertaken to identify seabed and subsurface hazards to drilling, such as wrecks and the presence of shallow gas. The surveys use a range of techniques, including multibeam and side scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, magnetometer and high-resolution seismic involving a much smaller source (mini-gun or four airgun cluster of 160in3) and a much shorter hydrophone streamer. The survey typically covers 2-3km2. The rig site survey vessel may also be used to characterise seabed habitats, biota and background contamination. Survey durations are usually of the order of four or five days. Well evaluation (e.g. Sometimes conducted to assist with well evaluation by linking rock strata encountered in drilling to seismic survey data. A seismic source Vertical Seismic (airgun array, typically with a source size around 500 in3 and with a maximum of 1200 in3) is deployed from the rig, and measurements are Profiling) made using a series of geophones deployed inside the wellbore. VSP surveys are of short duration (one or two days at most). Drilling Rig tow out & de- Mobile rigs are towed to and from the well site typically by 2-3 anchor handling vessels. mobilisation Rig placement/ Semi-submersible rigs use either anchors (deployed and recovered by anchor handler vessels) or dynamic positioning (DP) to manoeuvre anchoring into and stay in position over the well location. Eight to 12 anchors attached to the rig by cable or chain are deployed radially from the rig (at up to 1.5km in the North Sea and 3km in deep waters to the west of the UK); part of the anchoring hold is provided by a proportion of the cables or chains lying on the seabed (catenary). In the deepest waters to the west of the UK DP drill ships are typically used. Jack-up rigs are used in shallower waters (normally <120m) and jacking the rig legs to the seabed supports the drilling deck. Each of the rig legs terminates in a spud-can (base plate) with a diameter of 15-20m to prevent excessive sinking into the seabed. Marine discharges Typically around 1,000 tonnes of cuttings (primarily rock chippings) result from drilling an exploration well. Water-based mud cuttings are typically discharged at, or relatively close to sea surface during “closed drilling” (i.e. when steel casing in the well bore and a riser to the rig are in place), whereas surface hole cuttings are normally discharged at seabed during “open-hole” drilling. Use of oil based mud systems, for example in highly deviated sections or in drilling water reactive shales, would require onshore or alternative drilling waste disposal. Rig/vessel presence On site, the rig is supported by supply and standby vessels. Supply vessels typically make 2-3 supply trips per week between rig and shore. and movement Helicopter trips to transfer personnel to and from the rig are typically made several times a week.

14 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

3 Relevant Natura 2000 sites

Sites were considered for inclusion/exclusion in the screening process with respect to whether there was a pathway for interaction11 between the marine features for which they are designated and potential exploration/appraisal activities which could arise following Block licensing (see Table 2.2). Sites considered include designated Natura 2000 sites and potential sites for which there is adequate information on which to base an assessment.

Guidance in relation to sites which have not yet been submitted to the European Commission is given by Circular 06/2005 (ODPM 2005) which states that: “Prior to its submission to the European Commission as a cSAC, a proposed SAC (pSAC) is subject to wide consultation. At that stage it is not a European site and the Habitats Regulations do not apply as a matter of law or as a matter of policy. Nevertheless, planning authorities should take note of this potential designation in their consideration of any planning applications that may affect the site.” However, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012), devolved policy (e.g. Scottish Planning Policy) and Marine Policy Statement (HM Government 2011), the relevant sites considered here include classified and potential SPAs, designated and candidate SACs and Sites of Community Importance (SCIs). In addition to the above sites, the Scottish Government recently completed consultation on 10 proposed marine SPA sites and began consultation on another 4 in October 201612. Natural England have also completed consultation on a number of proposed SPA sites13 and with JNCC, commenced consultation on the Greater Wash pSPA in October 201614. The full details of all sites including their type, status and qualifying features are provided in Appendix A.

If further Natura 2000 sites are established during this HRA process, they will be subject to screening and if necessary included in subsequent Appropriate Assessment stages. The primary sources of site data were the latest JNCC SAC15 (version as of 24th October 2016) and SPA16 (version as of 24th October 2016) summary data and interest features and site characteristics were filtered for their coastal and marine relevance. The websites of the relevant Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) were also reviewed to verify and

11 Based on knowledge of potential sources of effect resulting from the activities (from previous BEIS AAs and SEAs), and pathways by which these effects may impact receptors present on the site (from previous BEIS AAs and SEAs, Regulation 33/35 advice and literature sources etc). Also refer to Section 4.2. 12 http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-areas/proposed-marine-spas/

13 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/marine-special-protection-area-consultations 14 https://consult.defra.gov.uk/natural-england-marine/greater-wash-potential-special-protection-area-com

15 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1461

16 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1409

15 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment augment site information including SNH17, Natural England18,19 and Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA)20. Any sites designated in the future would also be considered as necessary in subsequent project specific assessments.

The sites included in the screening process include:

 Coastal and marine Natura 2000 sites along the coasts of the United Kingdom and in territorial waters

 Offshore Natura 2000 sites (i.e. those largely or entirely beyond 12nm from the coast)

 Riverine Natura 2000 sites designated for migratory fish and/or the freshwater pearl mussel

 Relevant sites in adjacent states

 Coastal Ramsar sites

A number of Natura 2000 sites are designated for mobile species (seabirds, marine mammals and fish) which may be present beyond site boundaries. These are considered in Section 4.5.

In addition, Natura 2000 sites in the waters of other member states at or adjacent to the UK median line have been considered. All relevant sites are shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 overleaf and larger scale maps of the Blocks offered and sites together with site details can be found in Appendix A.

17 http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp 18 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/6490068894089216

19 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/conservation-advice-packages-for-marine-protected-areas

20 https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/topics/biodiversity-land-and-landscapes/protected-areas

16 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 3.1: SPAs included in the screening process

17 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 3.2: SACs included in the screening process

18 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

4 Screening Assessment Process

4.1 Introduction

This screening assessment is the first stage of an HRA to determine whether licensing of any of the Blocks offered in the 29th Round is likely to have a significant effect on a relevant European site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects. The approach to the screening assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the European Commission Guidance (EC 2000) augmented by reference to the range of other guidance and reports (see list in Section 1.3).

The approach taken to screening has been to:

 Define the likely location and nature of exploration/appraisal activities that could follow licensing, together with their potential to result in likely significant effects on European sites – see Section 2.

 Identify all relevant European sites and their qualifying primary and non-primary features with the potential to be affected by exploration/appraisal activities (i.e. those sites with marine features or with a marine ecological linkage) – see Section 3 and Appendix A.

 Screen the relevant sites for the likelihood of significant effects that could result from the licensing of individual Blocks offered, based on the nature and scale of potential effects from exploration and appraisal activities in a geographic information system (GIS) – see Section 5. Consideration is also given as appropriate to the potential for mobile species (e.g. seabirds, marine mammals and fish) to be present beyond relevant site boundaries, the site conservation objectives and specific advice on operations.

 Screen the relevant sites for likely significant effects that could result from the licensing of individual Blocks offered, in combination with other marine activities and plans – see Section 5.

 Those Blocks which are screened in (i.e. for which likely significant effects on relevant European sites could not be discounted at the screening stage) will be subject to a second stage of HRA, Appropriate Assessment, before decisions on whether to grant licences are taken – see Section 6 and Appendix B.

4.2 Sources of effect considered in this screening

As outlined in Section 2.3, activities which may be undertaken during the initial term of a Seaward Production Licence will comprise exploration/appraisal in the form of seismic survey and drilling. The foreseeable interactions from these two activities with the potential to result in likely significant effects on relevant Natura 2000 sites are therefore assessed in this report.

19 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

These activities, their environmental effects, and relevant legal and other controls are extensively described in the previous SEA Environmental and Technical Reports21 and are not duplicated in detail here.

Subsequent field development activity is contingent on successful exploration and appraisal and may or may not result in the eventual installation of infrastructure. Where relevant, such future activities will themselves be subject to a screening procedure and tests under the Habitats Directive.

Regulation 33 Advice22 (now Regulation 35 under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) was taken into account since it includes advice on operations that may cause deterioration or disturbance to relevant features or species. In addition, significant work has been undertaken in the area of sensitivity assessments and activity/pressure matrices in recent years (e.g. Tillin et al. 2010) resulting in agreed lists of pressures at a UK and North East Atlantic level (the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on Cumulative Effects (ICG-C), see Tillin & Tyler-Walters 2014). Defra (2015) includes an evidence base for the latest pressures-activity matrix produced by JNCC (2013). These are intended to be representative of the types of pressures that act on marine species and habitats from a defined set of activities, based on benchmarks of these pressures where the magnitude, extent or duration is qualified or quantified in some way. Whilst these matrices are informative and note many of the pressures associated with hydrocarbon exploration, resultant effects are not inevitable consequences of oil and gas activity since often they can be mitigated through timing, siting or technology (or a combination of these). The Department expects that these options would be evaluated by the licensees and documented in the environmental assessments required as part of the activity specific consenting regime.

A consideration of the potential for the above activities to result in likely significant effects was made, informed by the evidence base in the scientific literature, relevant BEIS Strategic Environmental Assessments, and recent Environmental Statements for the relevant activities. Based on this consideration, this screening assessment addresses those sources of impact generally considered to have the potential to affect relevant Natura 2000 sites, specifically:

 Physical disturbance and drilling effects (e.g. rig siting, marine discharges, rig/vessel presence and movement)

 Underwater noise

 In-combination effects

21 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/offshore-energy-strategic-environmental-assessment-sea-an-overview-of-the-sea- process 22 Under this Regulation, advice must be provided by the appropriate nature conservation body to other relevant authorities as to: a European site’s conservation objectives and any operations which may cause deterioration of natural habitats or the habitats of species, or disturbance of species, for which the site has been designated.

20 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Potential accidental events, including spills, are not considered in this HRA screening as they are not part of the work plan. Measures to prevent accidental events, response plans and potential impacts in the receiving environment would be considered as part of the environmental impact assessment process for specific projects that could follow licensing when the location, nature and timing of the proposed activities are available to inform a meaningful assessment of such risks.

Sections 4.3-4.5 provide more detail on the activities relevant to exploration, sources of effect relating to these (including summaries or references to relevant literature as appropriate), and how these have informed a set of screening criteria used to identify Blocks which should be considered further.

Mandatory controls and required mitigation measures are in place for each of the broad sources of effect listed above. This HRA screening assumes that the high level controls listed in Table 4.1 are applied as standard to activities since they are legislative requirements which if not adhered to would constitute an offence. These are distinct from further mitigation measures which may be identified and employed to avoid likely significant effects on relevant sites.

Table 4.1: High level controls identified for potential sources of effect Source of effect High level controls Physical disturbance There is a mandatory requirement to have sufficient recent data to characterise the seabed in areas where activities are due to take place (e.g. rig placement). If required, survey reports must be made available to the relevant statutory bodies on submission of a relevant permit application or Environmental Statement for the operation to be undertaken, and the identification of sensitive habitats by such survey (including those under Annex I of the Habitats Directive) may affect BEIS’s decision with regards to project level consent.

Further mitigation (e.g. alternative well location or rig positioning) may need to be identified and implemented where necessary. Marine discharges Discharges from offshore oil and gas facilities have been subject to increasingly stringent regulatory controls over recent decades (see review in DECC 2016, and related Appendices 2 and 3). Discharges of oil and other contaminant concentrations in waste streams (drilling wastes and produced water) have been substantially reduced or eliminated (e.g. the discharge of oil based muds and contaminated cuttings is effectively banned), with discharges of chemicals and oils outwith regulatory standards or permit conditions constituting an offence. Discharges are effectively controlled through permitting, monitoring and reporting (e.g. through the mandatory Environmental and Emissions Monitoring System (EEMS) and annual environmental performance reports).

At the project level, discharges would be considered in detail in project-specific Environmental Statements, HRAs (where necessary) and chemical risk assessments under existing permitting procedures.

21 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Source of effect High level controls Acoustic disturbance Proposals to undertake seismic surveys are subject to an application for consent. As part of the application process, licensees must justify that their proposed activity is not likely to cause a disturbance etc. under the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 (as amended) and Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended).

It is a condition of any consent issued under Regulation 4 of the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 (& 2007 amendments) for oil and gas related seismic surveys that the JNCC, Guidelines for minimising the risk of disturbance and injury to marine mammals from seismic surveys, are followed.

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) may be required as a mitigation tool. BEIS will take account of the advice provided by the relevant statutory nature conservation body in determining any additional consent conditions.

Potential disturbance of certain species may be avoided by the timing of noisy activities, and periods of seasonal concern for individual Blocks on offer have been highlighted (see Section 2 of OGA’s Other Regulatory Issues23 which accompanied the 29th Round offer) which licensees should take account of. Licensees should also be aware that it may influence BEIS’s decision whether or not to approve particular activities.

4.3 Physical disturbance and drilling effects

4.3.1 Direct physical disturbance The main sources of physical disturbance of the seabed from oil and gas exploration and appraisal activities are:

 Anchoring of semi-submersible rigs. Semi-submersible rigs typically use anchors to hold position, typically between 8 and 12 in number at a radius related to water depth, seabed conditions and anticipated metocean conditions. The seabed footprint associated with semi-submersible rig anchoring results from a combination of anchor scars caused by anchors dragging before gaining a firm hold, and scraping by the cable and/or chain linking the anchor to the rig, where these touch the seabed (the catenary contact). In relatively shallow North Sea depths, rig anchors extend to a radius of up to ca. 1,500m (note that semi-submersible rigs are typically not used in water depths of less than 120m). In contrast, in the Faroe-Shetland Chanel, a rig drilling in 1,200m water depth had anchors extending to a radius of some 2,750m (which accords with Gulf of Mexico experience, see CSA 2006). In the deeper waters to the west of the UK, the use of anchors can be largely negated through the use of dynamically positioned (DP) drill ships or DP semi-submersible rigs. These use a number of thrusters and accurate positioning information to maintain their station. For the purposes of this screening assessment, physical disturbance of the seabed to a maximum distance of 3km from a rig has been assumed.

23https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/540493/29R_Other_Regulatory_I ssues.pdf

22 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

 Placement of jack-up rigs. Jack-up rigs, normally used in shallower water (<120m), leave three or four seabed depressions from the feet of the rig (the spud cans) around 15-20m in diameter. In locations with an uneven or soft seabed, material such as grout bags or rocks may be placed on the seabed to stabilise the rig feet, and recoverable mud mats may be used in soft sediment. A four-legged rig with 20m diameter spudcans would have an approximate seabed footprint of 1,250m2 within a radius of ca. 50m of the rig centre.

 Drilling of wells and wellhead removal. The surface hole sections of exploration wells are typically drilled riserless, producing a localised (and transient) pile of surface-hole cuttings around the surface conductor. The persistence of cuttings discharged at the seabed is largely determined by the potential for it to be swept away by tidal currents. After installation of the surface casing (which will result in a small quantity of excess cement returns being deposited on the seabed), the blowout preventer (BOP) is positioned on the wellhead housing. These operations (and associated activities such as ROV operations) may result in physical disturbance of the immediate vicinity (a few metres) of the wellhead. When an exploration well is abandoned, the conductor and casing are plugged with cement and cut below the mudline (seabed sediment surface) using a mechanical cutting tool deployed from the rig and the wellhead assembly is removed. The seabed “footprint” of the well is therefore removed although post-well sediments may vary in the immediate vicinity of the well compared to the surrounding seabed (see for example, Jones et al. (2012)).

4.3.2 Drilling discharges The extent and potential impact of drilling discharges have been reviewed in successive SEAs (OESEA, OESEA2 and OESEA3 (DECC 2009, 2011 and 2016, respectively)).

In contrast to historic oil based mud discharges24, effects on seabed fauna of the discharge of cuttings drilled with water based muds (WBM) and of the excess and spent mud itself are usually subtle or undetectable, although the presence of drilling material at the seabed is often detectable chemically close to the drilling location (<500m) (e.g. Cranmer 1988, Neff et al. 1989, Hyland et al. 1994, Daan & Mulder 1996, Currie & Isaacs 2005, OSPAR 2009, Bakke et al. 2013, DeBlois et al. 2014). Considerable data has been gathered from the North Sea and other production areas, indicating that localised physical effects are the dominant mechanism of ecological disturbance where water-based mud and cuttings are discharged. Modelling of WBM cutting discharges has indicated that deposition of material is generally thin and quickly reduces away from the well. Jones et al. (2006, 2012) compared pre- and post-drilling ROV surveys of an exploration well in the Faroe-Shetland Channel in ~600m water depth and documented physical smothering effects within 100m of the well. Outside the area of smothering, fine sediment was visible on the seafloor up to at least 250m from the well. After 3 years, there was significant removal of cuttings and faunal density within 100m of the well was no longer significantly different from further away.

24 OSPAR Decision 2000/3 on the Use of Organic-Phase Drilling Fluids (OPF) and the Discharge of OPF- Contaminated Cuttings came into effect in January 2001 and effectively eliminated the discharge of cuttings contaminated with oil based fluids (OBF) greater than 1% by weight on dry cuttings.

23 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

OSPAR (2009) concluded that the discharge of drill cuttings and water-based fluids may cause some smothering in the near vicinity of the well location. The impacts from such discharges are localised and transient, but may be of concern in areas with sensitive benthic fauna, for example corals and sponges. Laboratory experiments by Allers et al. (2013) indicated that cold water coral (Lophelia pertusa) fragments were resilient to sedimentation-induced oxygen stress, but if coverage by sediment was complete and lasted long enough, the coral could not recover and died. Field experiments on the effects of water-based drill cuttings on benthos by Trannum et al. (2011) found after 6 months only minor differences in faunal composition between the controls and those treated with drill cuttings. This corresponds with the results of field studies where complete recovery was recorded within 1-2 years after deposition of water- based drill cuttings (Daan & Mulder 1996, Currie & Isaacs 2005).

Standard grade barite, the most commonly used weighting agent in WBMs, was found to alter the filtration rates of four bivalve species (Modiolus modiolus, Dosinia exoleta, Venerupis senegalensis and Chlamys varia) and to damage the gill structure when exposed to 0.5mm, 1.0mm and 2.0mm daily depth equivalent doses (Strachan 2010, Strachan & Kingston 2012). All three barite treatments altered the filtration rates leading to 100% mortality. The horse mussel (M. modiolus) was the most tolerant to standard barite with the scallop (C. varia) the least tolerant. Fine barite, at a 2mm daily depth equivalent, also altered the filtration rates of all species, but only affected the mortality of V. senegalensis, with 60% survival at 28 days. Field studies undertaken by Strachan (2010) showed that the presence of standard grade barite was not acutely toxic to seabed fauna but did alter benthic community structure when persistent.

Although suspensions of finer particles may be dispersed over greater distances than those of coarser particles, they will also be more dilute and therefore can be expected to have less impact on the marine environment. Although chemically inert, suspended barite has been shown under laboratory conditions to potentially have a detrimental effect on suspension feeding bivalves causing demonstrable damage to the gill filtration system and, after prolonged exposure, mortality. When the suspended barite levels used in laboratory studies are translated to field conditions (i.e. distances from the point of discharge) it is clear that any effects will be very local to a particular installation (in the case of oil and gas facilities, well within 500m).

The chemical formulation of WBM avoids or minimises the inclusion of toxic components, and the materials used in greatest quantities (barite and bentonite) are of negligible toxicity. The bulk of WBM constituents (by weight and volume) are on the OSPAR List of Substances/ Preparations Used and Discharged Offshore Which are Considered to Pose Little or No Risk to the Environment (PLONOR).

4.3.3 Other disturbance Blocks may support important numbers of seabirds at certain times of the year including overwintering birds and those foraging from coastal SPAs. Therefore, the presence and/or movement of vessels and aircraft from and within Blocks during exploration and appraisal activities could temporarily disturb foraging seabirds from relevant coastal SPA sites.

24 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Physical disturbance of seaduck and other waterbird flocks by vessel and aircraft traffic associated with hydrocarbon exploration and appraisal is possible, particularly in SPAs established for shy species (e.g. common scoter). Such disturbance can result in repeated disruption of bird feeding, loafing and roosting. For example, large flocks of common scoter were observed being put to flight at a distance of 2km from a 35m vessel, though smaller flocks were less sensitive and put to flight at a distance of 1km (Kaiser 2002, also see Schwemmer et al. 2011). Larger vessels would be expected to have an even greater disturbance distance (Kaiser et al. 2006). With respect to the disturbance and subsequent displacement of seabirds in relation to offshore wind farm (OWF) developments, Natural England & JNCC (2013) interim advice recommended a generic displacement buffer of 2km (to be added to the OWF footprint) for all species with the exception of divers and seaducks, for which a 4km buffer was recommended due to their increased sensitivity.

A significant number of various bird species migrate across the North Sea region twice a year or use the area as a feeding and resting area (OSPAR 2015). Some species crossing or using the area may become attracted to offshore light sources, especially in poor weather conditions with restricted visibility (e.g. low clouds, mist, drizzle, Weise et al. 2001), and this attraction can potentially result in mortality through collision (OSPAR 2015). As part of navigation and worker safety, and in accordance with international requirements, drilling rigs and associated vessels are lit at night and the lights will be visible at distance (some 10-12nm in good visibility). Guidelines (applicable to both existing and new offshore installations) aimed at reducing the impact of offshore installations lighting on birds in the OSPAR maritime area are available (OSPAR 2015). Exploration drilling activities are temporary so a drilling rig will be present at a location for a relatively short period, limiting the potential for significant interaction with migratory bird populations. It is therefore concluded that light effects will not have a significant effect on sites with qualifying mobile species which could potentially interact with illuminated drilling rigs and vessels.

The presence and/or movement of vessels from and within Blocks during drilling activities could also potentially disturb marine mammals foraging within or close to designated or potential SACs for which they are a qualifying feature. However, shore-based monitoring of the effects of boat activity on the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins off the US South Carolina coast, indicated that slow moving, large vessels, like ships or ferries, appeared to cause little to no obvious response in dolphin groups (Mattson et al. 2005). Pirotta et al. (2015) used passive acoustic techniques to quantify how boat disturbance affected bottlenose dolphin foraging activity in the inner Moray Firth. The presence of moving motorised boats appeared to affect bottlenose dolphin buzzing activity (foraging vocalisations), with boat passages corresponding to a reduction by almost half in the probability of recording a buzz. The boat effect was limited to the time where a boat was physically present in the sampled area and visual observations indicated that the effect increased for increasing numbers of boats in the area (Pirotta et al. 2013). Dolphins appeared to temporarily interrupt their activity when disturbed, staying in the area and quickly resuming foraging as the boat moved away. Repeated disruptions of foraging activity have the potential to translate into reduced energy intake (New et al. 2013). New et al. (2013) developed a mathematical model to simulate the complex social, spatial, behavioural and motivational interactions of coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Moray

25 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Firth, in order to assess the biological significance of increased rate of behavioural disruptions caused by vessel traffic. They explored a scenario in which vessel traffic increased from 70 to 470 vessels a year in response to the construction of a proposed offshore renewables facility. Despite the more than six-fold increase in vessel traffic, the dolphins’ predicted behavioural time budget, spatial distribution, motivations and social structure remained unchanged.

Worldwide, collisions with vessels are a potential source of mortality to marine mammals, primarily cetaceans. Whales are occasionally reported to be struck and killed, especially by fast-moving ferries but smaller cetacean species can also be impacted by propeller strikes from smaller vessels. In the UK certain areas experience very high densities of commercial and recreational shipping traffic, some of which may also be frequented by large numbers of marine mammals; despite this, relatively few deaths are recorded as results of collisions (Hammond et al. 2008). Between 2000 and 2009, only 11 out of 1,100 post-mortems on harbour porpoises and common dolphins identified collision as the cause of death (UKMMAS 2010).

4.3.4 Screening criteria for physical and drilling effects

With respect to physical and drilling effects, any Block should be screened in that is within or impinges on a Natura 2000 site, together with any Block within a buffer of 10km from a Natura 2000 site where there is a potential interaction between site features and exploration/appraisal activities in the Block.

Blocks screened in on the basis of physical and drilling effects and the relevant Natura 2000 sites are shown in Figures 5.1 (SPAs) and 5.2 (SACs) and listed in Appendix B2.

4.4 Underwater noise

4.4.1 Noise sources and propagation The sources, measurement, propagation, ecological effects and potential mitigation of noise associated with hydrocarbon exploration and production have been extensively reviewed, assessed and updated in each of the successive offshore energy SEAs (see DECC 2009, 2011, 2016).

Of those activities which could follow licensing (Table 2.2), geological seismic survey is of primary concern for noise effects. Other noise levels associated with activities potentially resulting from licensing of Blocks such as rig site survey, Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP), drilling and vessel movements, are of a considerably lower magnitude and duration than those resulting from a deep geological seismic survey. There is now a reasonable body of evidence to quantify noise levels associated with these activities and to understand the likely propagation of such noise within the marine environment, even in more complex coastal locations.

26 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

4.4.2 Effects thresholds Potential effects of anthropogenic noise on receptor organisms range widely, from masking of biological communication and small behavioural reactions, to chronic disturbance, auditory injury and mortality. In addition to direct effects, indirect effects may also occur for example via effects on prey species, complicating the overall assessment of significant effects. Marine mammals, and in particular the harbour porpoise, are regarded as the most sensitive to acoustic disturbance therefore it is considered appropriate to focus on marine mammals when assessing risk from underwater noise. While generally the severity of effects tends to increase with increasing exposure to noise, it is important to draw a distinction between effects associated with physical (including auditory) injury and effects associated with behavioural disturbance.

With respect to injury, risk from an activity can be assessed using threshold criteria based on sound levels. The latest SEA (OESEA3) supports the application of injury thresholds criteria developed by Southall et al. (2007), including the subsequent update for harbour porpoises in Lepper et al. (2014), based on the work by Lucke et al. (2009). It is recognised that seismic surveys have the potential to generate sound that exceeds thresholds of injury, but only within a limited range from source (tens to hundreds of meters). Within this zone, current mitigation measures as described in JNCC guidelines are thought sufficient in minimising the risk of injury to negligible levels.

With respect to disturbance however, it has proved much more difficult to establish broadly applicable threshold criteria based on exposure alone; this is largely due to the inherent complexity of animal behaviour where the same sound level is likely to elicit different responses depending on an individual’s behavioural context and exposure history. Field observations during industrial activities are fundamental sources of information for assessment. There is evidence for several species of cetaceans (mainly baleen whales) to suggest avoidance over distances most commonly around 2-5km from the seismic source while changes in acoustic communication have been recorded at much greater distances (up to tens or hundreds of kilometres) but the biological significance of these observed changes is uncertain. Evidence of the effects of seismic surveys on odontocetes and pinnipeds is limited but of note are the recent studies carried out in the Moray Firth observing responses to a 10 day 2-D seismic survey (Thompson et al. 2013a). Thompson et al. (2013a) reported a relative decrease in the density of harbour porpoises within 10km of the survey vessel and a relative increase in numbers at distances greater than 10km. These effects were short-lived with porpoise returning to impacted areas within 19 hours after cessation of activities. Overall it was concluded that while short-term disturbance was induced, the survey did not lead to long- term or broad-scale displacement (Thompson et al. 2013a). Further acoustic analyses revealed that for those animals which stayed in proximity to the survey, there was a 15% reduction in buzzing activity associated with foraging or social activity; however, high levels of natural variability in the detection of buzzes was noted prior to survey (Pirotta et al. 2015). Passive acoustic monitoring provided evidence of short-term behavioural responses also for bottlenose dolphins but no measurable effect on the number of dolphins using the Moray Forth SAC could be revealed (Thompson et al. 2013b).

27 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Many species of fish are highly sensitive to sound and vibration and broadly applicable sound exposure criteria have recently been published (Popper et al. 2014). Studies investigating fish mortality and organ damage from noise generated during seismic surveys are very limited and results are highly variable, from no effect to long-term auditory damage (reviewed in Popper et al. 2014). On the other hand, behavioural responses and effects on fishing success (“catchability”) have been reported following seismic surveys (Pearson et al. 1992, Skalski et al. 1992, Engås et al. 1996, Wardle et al. 2001). Potential effects on migratory diadromous fish is an area of significant interest for which empirical evidence is still limited, especially as salmonids and eels are sensitive to particle motion (not sound pressure) (Gill & Bartlett 2010). Atlantic salmon Salmo salar have been shown through physiological studies to respond to low frequency sounds (below 380Hz), with best hearing at 160Hz (threshold 95 dB re 1 μPa). Hence, their ability to respond to sound pressure is regarded as relatively poor with a narrow frequency span, a limited ability to discriminate between sounds, and a low overall sensitivity (Hawkins & Johnstone 1978, cited by Gill & Bartlett 2010).

Direct effects from seismic exploration noise on seabirds could occur through physical damage, or through disturbance of normal behaviour. Diving seabirds (e.g. auks) may be most at risk of acute trauma but while this is theoretically possible, evidence is limited. Hearing sensitivity for species measured so far peaks between 1 and 3kHz, with a steep roll-off after 4kHz (Crowell et al. 2015). Mortality of seabirds has not been observed during extensive seismic operations in the North Sea and elsewhere. A study investigated seabird abundance in Hudson Strait (Atlantic seaboard of Canada) during seismic surveys over three years (Stemp 1985). Comparing periods of shooting and non-shooting, no significant difference was observed in abundance of fulmar, kittiwake and thick-billed murre (Brünnich’s guillemot).

Airborne noise, for example from helicopter overflights, could potentially disturb birds in coastal SPAs, although in the context of other military and civilian aircraft activities the anticipated level of Block activity related noise is considered insignificant.

4.4.3 Screening criteria for underwater noise effects

With respect to acoustic disturbance, any Block should be screened in that is within 15km of a SAC with qualifying features regarded as sensitive to underwater noise (e.g. marine mammals and migratory fish). In the context of established injury threshold criteria (e.g. Southall et al. 2007), and the outcome of studies on the effects of seismic activity on marine mammal species in the UKCS (e.g. Thompson et al. 2013a, Pirotta et al. 2013), this is considered to be a conservative estimate of a maximum distance within which likely significant effects could be expected from the loudest noise sources associated with geological seismic survey activities. Blocks within 15km of an SPA designated for deep diving birds (e.g. auks, gannets) should also be screened in.

Blocks screened in on the basis of acoustic disturbance effects and the relevant Natura 2000 sites are shown in Figures 5.3 (SPAs) and 5.4 (SACs) and listed in Appendix B3.

28 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

4.5 Consideration of mobile species

There is the potential for mobile species (primarily seabirds, marine mammals and fish which are qualifying species of relevant sites) to interact with exploration and appraisal activities which could occur in 29th Round Blocks, outside of Natura 2000 sites. An overview of the current understanding of the foraging ranges of relevant species and therefore their potential interaction with work programme activities at distance from relevant sites is given below.

4.5.1 Seabirds Information on the foraging movements of a number of seabird species has increased in recent years, mainly due to advances in satellite and other tracking technologies (e.g. Langston et al. 2013, Wakefield et al. 2015, Thaxter et al. 2014, Cleasby et al. 2015). There is generally limited information on foraging areas used by species from particular colonies, and to help address this, Thaxter et al. (2012) reported on representative breeding season foraging ranges for a range of species.

Table 4.2 provides indicative foraging ranges (mean maximum and mean) travelled for a range of seabird species from a breeding colony to a foraging area. The mean maximum foraging range value has been used here to show possible connectivity to breeding colony SPAs, however bird density will not be continuous throughout this range. Other ways of representing foraging ranges (e.g. the mean, or percentage foraging area derived from kernel analyses) may therefore provide more useful information, where available. Caution is also required when using limited foraging range data, for example the use of a single breeding season or location, relatively small sample size, and lack of direct studies to provide ‘‘representative’’ foraging range information (Thaxter et al. 2012).

Table 4.2: Indicative breeding season foraging ranges Mean maximum1 Mean2 Confidence Species 3 (km) (km) level Eider 80 2.4 Poor Red-throated diver 9 4.5 Low Fulmar 400 ± 245.8 47.5 ± 1 Moderate Manx shearwater 18.3 ± 12.5 & >330 2.3 ±0.8 Moderate Leach’s storm petrel 91.7 ± 27.5 - Poor Gannet 229.4 ± 124.3 92.5 ± 59.9 Highest Cormorant 25 ± 10 5.2 ± 1.5 Moderate Shag 14.5 ± 3.5 5.9 ± 4.7 Moderate Arctic skua 62.5 ± 17.2 6.4 ± 5.9 Uncertain Great skua 10.9 ± 3.0 & 86.4 - Moderate, Poor Black-headed gull 25.5 ± 20.5 11.4 ± 6.7 Uncertain Common gull 50 25 Poor Mediterranean gull 20 11.5 Uncertain Herring gull 61.1 ± 44 10.5 Moderate Lesser black-backed gull 141.0 ± 50.8 71.9 ± 10.2 Moderate Kittiwake 60.0 ± 23.3 24.8 ±12.1 Highest Sandwich tern 49.0 ± 7.1 11.5 ± 4.7 Moderate Roseate tern 16.6 ± 11.6 12.2 ± 12.1 Low

29 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Mean maximum1 Mean2 Confidence Species 3 (km) (km) level Common tern 15.2 ± 11.2 4.5 ± 3.2 Moderate Arctic tern 24.2 ± 6.3 7.1 ± 2.2 Moderate Little tern 6.3 ± 2.4 2.1 Low Guillemot 84.2 ± 50.1 37.8 ± 32.2 Highest Razorbill 48.5 ± 35.0 23.7 ± 7.5 Moderate Puffin 105.4 ± 46.0 4 Low Note: 1. The maximum range reported in each study averaged across studies. 2. The mean foraging range reported for each colony averaged across all colonies. For tracking studies, this was typically the mean foraging range from all central place foraging trips assessed at the colony. 3. Confidence levels were assigned as follows: highest (based on >5 direct studies); moderate (between 2-5 direct studies); low (1 direct study); uncertain (foraging range estimated using (few) survey data). Source: Thaxter et al. (2012) The offshore distribution of the above species varies throughout the year but in general they are widely distributed at low densities with areas of moderate or higher density. Within the North Sea, these areas include the shelf edge for gannet and lesser black-backed gulls, the Dogger Bank for guillemot, the Dutch Bank for herring gull, Fladen Ground for kittiwake, the Moray Firth and Aberdeen bank for razorbill (Stone et al. 1995). To the north west of the UK, seabird distribution is closely correlated to water depth with more birds found over shallower continental shelves than the deeper oceanic waters. Birds present in the deeper slope and oceanic waters will comprise mainly pelagic species (e.g. fulmar, gannet and kittiwake). Some high density areas are also likely to be transitory, associated with short-lived natural feeding aggregations or attraction to fishing vessels. A BEIS-funded three year telemetry study of gannets from Bempton Cliffs indicated a marked decline in the density of foraging locations with distance from colony which was the over-riding influence on gannet distribution at sea during the breeding season (Langston et al. 2013). Similarly Witt et al. (2012) reported that breeding birds, constrained to return to the nest, foraged less widely than immature birds; and other studies using GPS tracking of breeding gannets have indicated some consistency in the use of foraging areas by individual adults (e.g. Hamer et al. 2007, Patrick et al. 2015, Wakefield et al. 2015).

As part of the process of identifying potential Marine Protected Areas, seabird aggregations have been delineated through analysis of the European Seabirds at Sea (ESAS) database (Kober et al. 2010, 2012). Forty-two areas were identified for eleven seabird species, covering many of the species highlighted in Table 4.2 (fulmar, Manx shearwater, gannet, shag, great skua, kittiwake, common gull, herring gull, Arctic tern, guillemot and puffin) in both the breeding and the non-breeding seasons. A review of 25 of these areas in light of other independent information was carried out to provide a more robust and complete evidence-base on which to base any future decisions about these areas (note that a number are currently proposed SPAs) (Cook et al. 2015). The review also considered whether there was a sound ecological rationale behind each aggregation such as the presence of suitable habitat, proximity to known breeding colonies, or high abundance of prey species in the area. Based on this process, a number of proposed marine SPAs have recently or are currently undergoing consultation which

30 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment cover foraging areas during breeding periods as well as wintering areas for most of the species identified above. These proposed SPAs have been screened in where appropriate. BEIS will ensure that the HRA process considers the ongoing marine SPAs identification process.

Physical, visual or acoustic disturbance from exploration drilling and seismic survey is not regarded to result in significant effects for bird species in relation to Blocks beyond those already screened in, as outlined in Sections 4.3 and 4.4. This is due to: the relatively small seabed footprint and transitory nature of rig placement/installation and drilling discharges coupled with the relatively low densities of seabirds in offshore waters; that none of the species identified are particularly vulnerable to disturbance by shipping (Garthe Hüppop 2004) and are therefore unlikely to be significantly disturbed by the presence and movement of vessels associated with exploration activities; the likely low density of gannets, razorbill and guillemots in offshore areas (outside Blocks screened in by the 15km noise criterion), and limited exposure time during foraging dives to underwater noise associated with seismic survey.

4.5.2 Marine mammals Grey seal telemetry data from 1991-2011 and harbour seal telemetry data from 2001-2012 have been used to produce UK-wide maps by species of estimated density (Jones et al. 2015). Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show the UK wide density of harbour and grey seals respectively in relation to the 29th Round Blocks offered, those Blocks screened in and relevant seal management units. The usage maps represent the estimated density of the expected population of seals in each 5x5km grid square at any point in time (Jones et al. 2015).

The seal management units (MU) currently in use around the UK (indicated on Figures 5.5 and 5.6) were originally formulated in response to requirements of legislative drivers and do not define discrete populations. Given the movement of animals between MUs (Russell et al. 2013), especially in the case of grey seals, impacts on animals may have effects at the population level outside the particular MU with which the ‘population’ is associated (SCOS 2014). For harbour seals, these are broadly similar to OSPAR EcoQO units (OSPAR Ecological Quality Objectives) and supported by recent ICES advice on assessment units for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (ICES 2014). For grey seals, ICES has advised for only two assessment units, one for the North Sea and one to combine western Britain, Ireland and Western France. An Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group (IAMMWG 2015) paper on management units for cetaceans in UK waters indicated that an as yet unpublished paper outlining seal MUs was in preparation. The areas of highest seal density are primarily associated with nearshore waters close to colonies, some of which are designated SACs. Relevant 29th Round Blocks in these areas have already been screened in.

Analyses of photo-identification data and some genetic studies have shown that within European waters there are coastal/inshore groups of bottlenose dolphins which are mobile and range over large areas but still show strong site fidelity along defined stretches of coast (see ICES 2013, Quick et al. 2014). Some dolphins appear to make long-distance movements from the east coast of Scotland to the west coast of Scotland and to Irish waters, although the population identity of these apparently wide-ranging individuals is unknown (Robinson et al. 2012). Whilst ICES (2013) recognised that in some areas information is incomplete, that distribution may be ephemeral and the animals present likely comprise sympatric populations, 31 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment they proposed a series of bottlenose dolphin MU for UK waters; the boundaries of which were finalised by IAMMWG (2015) (Figure 5.9). Figure 5.7 shows that all 29th Round Blocks within the coastal east Scotland MU for bottlenose dolphin, which may be associated with the Moray Firth SAC, have already been screened in (see Section 4.5.4).

The harbour porpoise is the most common cetacean in UK waters; it is wide-ranging and abundant throughout the UK shelf seas, both coastally and offshore (Reid et al. 2003). This species is sighted throughout the year, although peak numbers are generally recorded in summer months from June to October. Since the early 1990s it appears to have become much less common around the Northern Isles, while increasing in numbers in the English Channel, southern North Sea and in the Celtic Sea, where few individuals had been previously observed (i.e. SCANS-I 1994) (Hammond et al. 2013, also see Evans et al. 2015). In coastal waters they are often encountered close to islands and headlands with strong tidal currents (e.g. Pierpoint 2008); sightings becoming increasingly rare close to the continental shelf edge, with relatively few records in deeper waters beyond the shelf edge (Reid et al. 2003). Individuals across the UKCS are part of the north east Atlantic population which is mainly considered to be a single ‘continuous’ population, even though some degree of genetic differentiation has been observed (Andersen et al. 1997, 2001, Tolley et al. 2001, Fontaine et al. 2007). However, for management and conservation purposes, three distinct UK Management Units have been proposed (IAMMWG 2015); the North Sea, West Scotland and the Celtic & Irish Seas.

Heinänen & Skov (2015) identified discrete and persistent areas of relatively high porpoise density, mainly within the Irish Sea and Welsh coastal waters, shelf waters of the North Sea and along the north-west Scottish coast. Following on from this work, six proposed Special Areas of Conservation (pSACs) (in both inshore and offshore waters) were identified for harbour porpoise and are currently being considered, with the Inner Hebrides and The Minches cSAC having been submitted to the European Commission in September 2016. The Southern North Sea pSAC is the only site screened in with respect to the 29th Round Blocks.

4.5.3 Fish Of those fish listed under Annex II of the EC Habitats Directive, only Atlantic salmon, sea lamprey and river lamprey are qualifying species of sites relevant to the 29th Round Blocks.

Given their widespread and transient presence offshore, particularly in the majority of Blocks to the west of the UK in deeper waters, where diadromous species for example will only be present on migration and unlikely to be encountered, potential exploration activity in the 29th Round Blocks away from the coast is unlikely to have a significant effect on relevant sites. Consequently, no additional Blocks to those already screened in on the basis of physical disturbance or noise effects have been identified for further assessment.

4.5.4 Conclusion Whilst individuals of the mobile species discussed above could potentially interact with work programme activities associated with the Initial Term (see Section 2.2) for Blocks other than those already screened in, significant effects on the populations of sites relating to such

32 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment species, and therefore the conservation status of such sites, are not considered likely. This is due to the combination of:

 The small physical footprint of activities and their transitory nature.

 The likely scale of potential activity (i.e. number of licences applied for and awarded, and actual activity which follows, see Section 2.3.1), and the duration of the initial term (up to 9 years) within which activity could take place.

 The likely relative density of relevant features in relation to activities which could take place.

4.6 In-combination effects

This screening assessment includes the potential for in-combination effects leading to likely significant effects on European sites resulting from the interaction of exploration/appraisal activities in 29th Round Blocks with activities resulting from other marine plans, programmes and activities.

Marine planning has a key role in informing strategic and project level spatial considerations, with the Marine Policy Statement indicating, “Marine Plans should reflect and address, so far as possible, the range of activities occurring in, and placing demands on, the plan area. The Marine Plan should identify areas of constraint and locations where a range of activities may be accommodated. This will reduce real and potential conflict, maximise compatibility between marine activities and encourage co-existence of multiple uses.”

Currently, there are 11 marine plan areas within English inshore and English offshore regions and marine plans have been prepared for two of these, the East Inshore and Offshore plans. The North East marine plan is in development. The Scottish National Marine Plan was adopted in March 2015 and subsequent regional planning has been proposed for a further 11 inshore areas. Other devolved plans are still in development. To date, whilst the marine plans acknowledge the potential interactions between activities and map these, they are not spatially prescriptive and therefore provide a limited indication of the location of possible future development.

The uncertainty over the scale and timing of activities which could follow licensing of 29th Round Blocks and the activities resulting from other plans and programmes is recognised. Using a GIS, the 29th Round Blocks (distinguishing those screened in and screened out following the application of the criteria given in Section 4.3-4.5) are considered in the context of areas of activity and proposals for a range of marine activities/potential activities including:

 Existing oil and gas licences (Figures 5.8 and 5.9)

 Carbon Capture and Storage Agreement for Leases (Figures 5.8 and 5.9)

 Existing oil and gas infrastructure (Figures 5.10 and 5.11) 33 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

 Marine renewable energy developments and zones (Figures 5.12 and 5.13)

 Navigation density (Figures 5.14 and 5.15)

GIS outputs are included for each of the above showing the spatial relationship to SPAs and SACs and a text based consideration is made of the potential for in-combination effects leading to likely significant effects on European sites (see Section 5).

34 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

5 Screening

5.1 Screening of potential effects of 29th Round Block activities

The screening of the various sources of impact from exploration and appraisal activities which could follow licensing of the 29th Round Blocks (as described in Section 4) were applied to the relevant European sites and considered in the context of mobile species when not within site boundaries. This led to the identification of a number of Blocks for which likely significant effects on European sites could not be discounted at the screening stage. Figures 5.1-5.4 illustrate these initial screening results as paired maps showing the Blocks and sites which have been screened in.

The Blocks screened in at this stage are listed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: List of Blocks initially screened in

West of Scotland 128/1 134/11 138/8 139/18 141/6 148/24 153/22 155/15 164/9 166/22 128/2 134/12 138/9 139/21 141/7 148/25 153/23 155/16 164/10 166/23 128/3 134/13 138/10 139/22 141/8 148/26 153/24 155/17 164/11 166/24 128/4 134/14 138/13 139/26 141/11 148/27 153/25 155/18 164/12 166/25 128/5 134/16 138/14 139/27 141/12 148/28 153/29 155/19 164/13 166/26 128/6 134/17 138/15 140/7 141/13 148/29 153/30 155/21 164/14 166/27 128/7 134/18 138/19 140/8 141/16 148/30 154/16 155/22 164/15 166/28 128/8 134/19 138/20 140/9 141/17 149/21 154/17 156/1 165/1 166/29 128/9 134/20 138/23 140/10 141/18 149/26 154/18 156/2 165/2 166/30 128/10 134/21 138/24 140/12 141/19 149/27 154/19 156/3 165/3 174/27 129/1 134/22 138/25 140/13 141/21 152/15 154/21 156/4 165/4 174/28 133/14 134/23 138/27 140/14 141/22 152/19 154/22 156/5 165/6 174/29 133/15 134/24 138/28 140/15 141/23 152/20 154/23 156/8 165/7 174/30 133/18 134/25 138/29 140/17 141/26 153/11 154/24 156/9 165/8 175/21 133/19 134/26 138/30 140/18 141/27 153/12 154/25 156/10 165/9 175/22 133/20 134/27 139/1 140/19 148/6 153/13 154/26 156/14 165/10 175/26 133/23 134/28 139/2 140/20 148/11 153/14 154/27 156/15 165/11 175/27 133/24 138/1 139/6 140/22 148/16 153/15 154/28 164/2 165/12 175/28 133/25 138/2 139/7 140/23 148/17 153/16 154/29 164/3 165/24 133/29 138/3 139/11 140/24 148/18 153/17 154/30 164/4 165/25 133/30 138/4 139/12 140/25 148/19 153/18 155/4 164/5 165/29 134/6 138/5 139/13 140/28 148/21 153/19 155/5 164/6 165/30 134/7 138/6 139/16 140/29 148/22 153/20 155/13 164/7 166/6 134/8 138/7 139/17 140/30 148/23 153/21 155/14 164/8 166/21 Northern North Sea 16/2a 35 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Table 5.1: List of Blocks initially screened in

Mid North Sea High 18/30 25/5 26/1 34/3 34/25 37/12 37/28b 38/28 42/9a 44/5 19/11 25/8 26/6 34/4 36/13 37/13 37/29b 38/29 42/10c 45/1 19/12 25/9 26/16 34/6 36/14 37/16 37/30 38/30 42/13b 19/13 25/10 26/17 34/7 36/15 37/17 38/16 39/12 42/14a 19/16 25/13 26/21 34/8 36/18 37/18 38/17 39/17 42/17 19/17 25/14 26/22 34/9 36/19 37/19 38/21 39/21 42/26 19/18 25/18 26/23 34/12 36/20 37/20 38/22 39/26 42/27b 19/21 25/19 26/26 34/13 36/23 37/21 38/23 40/5 43/10 19/22 25/20 26/27 34/14 36/24 37/22 38/24 41/29a 44/1 19/23 25/24 26/28 34/15 36/25 37/23 38/25 41/29b 44/2 19/26 25/25 34/1 34/17 36/29 37/24 38/26 41/30 44/3 25/4 25/30 34/2 34/20 37/11 37/25 38/27 42/8a 44/4

5.2 Screening for potential in-combination effects

The Blocks identified (Table 5.1) for further assessment were considered further in terms of the potential for likely significant effects to arise from activities in 29th Round Blocks, in- combination with those from other marine activities. Relevant marine activities were identified based on those referred to in Appendix 1h of OESEA3 (DECC 2016) and where it was considered that a relevant pathway of in-combination effect was present. The sources of in- combination effect are regarded to be largely related to physical disturbance and noise, and in the context of those areas being offered for licensing, any such effects are expected to be primarily from other offshore energy, specifically offshore wind in the Mid North Sea High area and existing oil and gas activity in the northern North Sea area. Aggregate extraction is not presently undertaken within any of the three 29th Seaward Licensing Round areas.

Figures 5.8 and 5.9 illustrate the spatial relationship between existing oil and gas licences, agreements for lease (AfL) for carbon capture and storage and the relevant European sites, as well as the 29th Round Blocks (with those screened in identified). Existing controls on exploration and appraisal operations, and their likely intensity, suggest that significant in- combination effects of existing licensed areas and those proposed for licensing in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round on European sites are not likely. Carbon capture and storage AfLs can overlap with oil and gas licence Blocks but the two currently granted (for the Goldeneye field in Blocks 14/29a, 20/4b and 20/3b, and National Grid’s 5/42 site in the southern North Sea in a number of Blocks in Quadrants 42 and 43) are either remote from any European sites and propose to use either existing (Goldeneye) or relatively small, new unmanned facilities (National Grid). Should either development progress, in-combination effects are not considered likely.

Figures 5.10 and 5.11 illustrate existing oil and gas infrastructure, relevant European sites and the 29th Round Blocks. Based on the lack of or limited spatial overlap, documented scale of effects from production operations together with existing controls on exploration and appraisal

36 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment operations, significant in-combination effects on European sites are not likely to occur because of the application of existing controls and mandatory assessments.

Figures 5.12 and 5.13 show marine renewable energy development and development zones, relevant European sites and the 29th Round Blocks. A number of Blocks overlap with renewable energy developments, with a number also coinciding with European sites (specifically Blocks overlap with the Dogger Bank SAC and Southern North Sea pSAC, and the Creyke Beck/Teesside wind farm developments, and the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA and the Neart na Gaoithe and Inch Cape wind farm developments (recently put on hold following a judicial review25)). In all cases these Blocks have been screened in to the second stage of HRA when the potential for significant in-combination effects on European sites would be assessed.

Figures 5.14 and 5.15 illustrate the spatial relationship between the density of navigation use of UK waters, relevant European sites and the 29th Round Blocks. The 29th Round Blocks coincident with areas of elevated navigation density in or in proximity to European sites (where potential significant in-combination effects could occur) have been screened in to the second stage of HRA where this consideration will be made.

Commercial fishing occurs throughout UK waters and effort data provides a strategic level proxy of fisheries activity across the UKCS. However, it is noted that activity is seasonally and annually variable, and collated data includes most but not all fishing activity. Fishing and particularly bottom trawling has historically contributed to seabed disturbance over extensive areas, and was identified as an ongoing problem in the UK initial assessment for MSFD26. It was also noted that depending on the nature of future measures (e.g. in relation to MPA management in the wider environment and within MPAs), such effects are likely to be reduced and therefore some improvement in benthic habitats could be expected. In England such management is coordinated between the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities and the Marine Management Organisation for sites within 12nm, and by Scottish Ministers in Scottish waters. For offshore sites, measures are required to be proposed by the European Commission in accordance with the Common Fisheries Policy27. A revised approach to the management of commercial fisheries in European sites28 has sought to implement steps to ensure that they are managed in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, and a number of closure areas are either already in place or have been proposed. Such closures may limit the potential for in-combination effects, particularly when considered in addition to mitigation which is available to reduce or avoid effects on sites from exploration activity.

25 http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/07/21/rspb-wins-legal-challenge-to-put-offshore-wind-farms-on-hold/ 26 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-strategy-part-one-uk-initial-assessment-and-good- environmental-status 27 Also refer to Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy. 28 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revised-approach-to-the-management-of-commercial-fisheries-in- european-marine-sites-overarching-policy-and-delivery also see: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine- environment/mpanetwork/SACmanagement

37 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.1: Physical and drilling effects – Blocks screened in, showing SPAs

38 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.2: Physical and drilling effects – Blocks screened in, showing SACs

39 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.3: Acoustic disturbance effects – Blocks screened in, showing SPAs

40 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.4: Acoustic disturbance effects – Blocks screened in, showing SACs

41 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.5: Estimated total density of harbour seals in UK waters

42 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.6: Estimated total density of grey seals in UK waters

43 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.7: Bottlenose dolphin management units in the UK

44 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.8: Existing oil and gas licences, CCS AfLs*, SPAs and 29th Round Blocks

*CCS AfLs= Carbon Capture and Storage Agreements for Lease 45 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.9: Existing oil and gas licences, CCS AfLs*, SACs and 29th Round Blocks

*CCS AfLs= Carbon Capture and Storage Agreements for Lease 46 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.10: Oil and gas infrastructure, SPAs and 29th Round Blocks

47 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.11: Oil and gas infrastructure, SACs and 29th Round Blocks

48 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.12: Marine renewable energy, SPAs and 29th Round Blocks

49 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.13: Marine renewable energy, SACs and 29th Round Blocks

50 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.14: Navigation density, SPAs and 29th Round Blocks

51 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 5.15: Navigation density, SACs and 29th Round Blocks

52 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

6 Conclusion

This screening assessment is based on the Blocks offered in the 29th Round and has considered the likelihood for significant effects on Natura 2000 sites from exploration/appraisal activities that could follow licensing of Blocks. The screening concluded that for the majority of the Blocks, licensing would not have the potential to cause significant effects on Natura 2000 site(s), on the understanding that subsequent field activities will be subject to activity specific permitting and HRA (where appropriate) to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are applied to planned operations and the prevention of potential for accidents, and that activities do not proceed where this would not be in accordance with the relevant permitting regimes. However, based on the screening results a number of Blocks which are being offered will be subject to a second stage of HRA, Appropriate Assessment, prior to decisions on the grant of such licences. These Blocks are listed in Table 5.1 and Appendix B (which includes relevant sites), and are also shown in Figure 6.1.

53 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Figure 6.1: 29th Round Blocks for which a 2nd Stage of HRA will be undertaken

54 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

7 References

Allers E, Abed RMM, Wehrmann LM, Wang T, Larsson AI, Purser A & de Beer D (2013). Resistance of Lophelia pertusa to coverage by sediment and petroleum drill cuttings. Marine Pollution Bulletin 74: 132-140. Andersen LW, Holm LE, Siegismund HR, Clausen B, Kinze CC & Loeschcke V (1997) A combined DNA- microsatellite and isozyme analysis of the population structure of the harbour porpoise in Danish waters and West Greenland. Heredity 78: 270–276. Andersen LW, Ruzzante DE, Walton M, Berggren P, Bjørge A & Lockyer C (2001). Conservation genetics of the harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in eastern and central North Atlantic. Conservation Genetics 2: 309-324. Bakke T, Klungsøyr J & Sanni S (2013). Environmental impacts of produced water and drilling waste discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry. Marine Environmental Research 92: 154-169. Cleasby IR, Wakefield ED, Bearhop S, Bodey TW, Votier SC & Hamer KC (2015). Three-dimensional tracking of a wide-ranging marine predator: flight heights and vulnerability to offshore wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 52: 1474-1482. Continental Shelf Associates (CSA) 2006. Effects of oil and gas exploration and development at selected continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume I: Executive Summary. US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-044. 45pp. Cook, ASCP, Still DA, Humphreys EM. & Wright LJ (2015). Review of evidence for identified seabird aggregations. JNCC Report No 537. JNCC, Peterborough. Cranmer G (1988). Environmental survey of the benthic sediments around three exploration well sites. Report No 88/02. Report to the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association. Aberdeen University Marine Studies Ltd, Aberdeen, UK, 33pp. Crowell SE, Wells-Berlin AM, Carr CE, Olsen GH, Therrien RE, Yannuzzi SE & Ketten DR (2015). A comparison of auditory brainstem responses across diving bird species. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 201: 803-815. Currie DR & Isaacs LR (2005). Impact of exploratory offshore drilling on benthic communities in the Minerva gas field, Port Campbell, Australia. Marine Environmental Research 59: 217-233. Daan R & Mulder M (1996). On the short-term and long-term impact of drilling activities in the Dutch sector of the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 53: 1036-1044. DCLG (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London. DeBlois EM, Paine MD, Kilgour BW, Tracy E, Crowley RD, Williams UP & Janes GG (2014). Alterations in bottom sediment physical and chemical characteristics at the Terra Nova offshore oil development over ten years of drilling on the grand banks of Newfoundland, Canada. Deep-Sea Research II 110: 13-25. DECC (2009). Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment, Environmental Report. Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK, 307pp plus appendices. http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/scripts/book_info.php?consultationID=16&bookID=11 DECC (2011). Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment 2, Environmental Report. Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK, 443pp plus appendices. http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/scripts/book_info.php?consultationID=17&bookID=18 DECC (2016). Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment 3, Environmental Report. Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK, 652pp plus appendices. Defra (2012). The Habitats and Wild Birds Directives in England and its seas. Core guidance for developers, regulators & land/marine managers. December 2012 (draft for public consultation), 44pp. Defra (2015). Validating an Activity-Pressure Matrix, Report R.2435, pp73. Available from: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=13051_ME5218FinalReport.pdf EC (2000). Managing NATURA 2000 Sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC, 69pp. Engås A, Løkkeborg S, Ona E & Soldal AV (1996). Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2238-2249. English Nature (1997). Habitats regulations guidance notes. Issued by English Nature.

55 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Evans PGH, Pierce GJ, Veneruso G, Weir CR, Gibas D, Anderwald P & Santos BM (2015). Analysis of long-term effort-related land-based observations to identify whether coastal areas of harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin have persistent high occurrence & abundance. JNCC Report No. 543, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK, 152pp. Fontaine MC, Baird SJE, Piry S, Ray N and others (2007) Rise of oceanographic barriers in continuous populations of a cetacean: the genetic structure of harbour porpoises in Old World waters. BMC Biology 5: 30. Garthe S & Hüppop O (2004). Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 724-734. Gill AB & Bartlett M (2010). Literature review on the potential effects of electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments on Atlantic salmon, sea trout and European eel. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.401, 43pp. Hamer KC, Humphreys EM, Garthe S, Hennicke J, Peters G, Gremillet D, Phillips RA, Harris MP & Wanless S (2007). Annual variation in diets, feeding locations and foraging behaviour of gannets in the North Sea: flexibility, consistency and constraint. Marine Ecology Progress Series 338: 295-305. Hammond PS, Macleod K, Berggren P, Borchers DL, Burt L, Cañadas A, Desportes G, Donovan GP, Gilles A, Gillespie D, Gordon J, Hiby L, Kuklik I, Leaper R, Lehnert K, Leopold M, Lovell P, Øien N, Paxton CGM, Ridoux V, Rogan E, Samarra F, Scheidat M, Sequeira M, Siebert U, Skov H, Swift R, Tasker ML, Teilmann J, Van Canneyt O & Vázquez JA (2013). Cetacean abundance and distribution in European Atlantic shelf waters to inform conservation and management. Biological Conservation 164: 107-122. Hammond PS, Northridge SP, Thompson D, Gordon JCD, Hall AJ, Murphy SN & Embling CB (2008). Background information on marine mammals for Strategic Environmental Assessment 8. Report to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Sea Mammal Research Unit, St. Andrews, Scotland, UK, 52pp. Heinänen S & Skov H (2015). The identification of discrete and persistent areas of relatively high harbour porpoise density in the wider UK marine area. JNCC Report No. 544, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK, 108pp. HM Government (2011). UK Marine Policy Statement. HM Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government, 51pp. Hoskin R & Tyldesley D (2006). How the scale of effects on internationally designated nature conservation sites in Britain has been considered in decision making: A review of authoritative decisions. English Nature Research Reports, No 704. Hyland J, Hardin D, Steinhauer M, Coats D, Green R & Neff J (1994). Environmental impact of offshore oil development on the outer continental shelf and slope off Point Arguello, California. Marine Environmental Research 37: 195-229. IAMMWG (2015). Management units for marine mammals in UK waters (January 2015). Inter-agency Marine Mammal Working Group. JNCC Report No. 547. ICES (2014). OSPAR request on implementation of MSFD for marine mammals. Special request, Advice May 2014, 17pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/Special%20Requests/OSPAR_Implementation_ of_MSFD_for_marine_mammals.pdf ICES (2013). Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME), 4–7 February 2013, Paris, France. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:26. 117 pp. JNCC (2013). Progress towards the development of a standardised UK pressure-activities matrix. Paper for Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group Meeting - 9th-10th October 2013, 13pp. Jones DOB, Gates AR & Lausen B (2012). Recovery of deep-water megafaunal assemblages from hydrocarbon drilling disturbance in the Faroe-Shetland Channel. Marine Ecology Progress Series 461: 71-82. Jones DOB, Hudson IR & Bett BJ (2006). Effects of physical disturbance on the cold-water megafaunal communities of the Faroe-Shetland Channel. Marine Ecology Progress Series 319: 43-54. Jones EL, McConnell BJ, Smout S, Hammond PS, Duck CD, Morris CD, Thompson D, Russell DJF, Vincent C, Cronin M, Sharples RJ & Matthiopoulos J (2015). Patterns of space use in sympatric marine colonial predators reveal scales of spatial partitioning. Marine Ecology Progress Series 534: 235-249. Judd AD, Backhaus T & Goodsir F (2015). An effective set of principles for practical implementation of marine cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Science & Policy 54: 254-262. Kaiser MJ (2002). Predicting the displacement of common scoter Melanitta nigra from benthic feeding areas due to offshore windfarms. Centre for Applied Marine Sciences, School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales, BANGOR. Report for COWRIE, 8pp.

56 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Kaiser MJ, Galanidi M, Showler DA, Elliott AJ, Caldow RWG, Rees EIS, Stillman RA & Sutherland WJ (2006). Distribution and behaviour of common scoter Melanitta nigra relative to prey resources and environmental parameters. Ibis 148: 110-128. Kober K, Webb A, Win I, Lewis M, O’Brien S, Wilson LJ Reid JB (2010). An analysis of the numbers and distribution of seabirds within the British Fishery Limit aimed at identifying areas that qualify as possible marine SPAs. JNCC Report No. 431, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK, 83pp. Kober K, Wilson LJ, Black J, O’Brien S, Allen S, Win I, Bingham C Reid JB (2012). The identification of possible marine SPAs for seabirds in the UK: the application of Stage 1.1-1.4 of the SPA selection guidelines. JNCC Report No. 461, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK, 85pp. Langston RHW, Teuten E & Butler A (2013). Foraging ranges of northern gannets Morus bassanus in relation to proposed offshore wind farms in the UK: 2010-2012. RSPB document produced as part of the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's offshore energy Strategic Environmental Assessment programme, 74pp Lepper PA, Gordon J, Booth C, Theobald P, Robinson SP, Northridge S & Wang L (2014). Establishing the sensitivity of cetaceans and seals to acoustic deterrent devices in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 517, 121pp. Lucke K, Siebert U, Lepper PA & Blanchet M-A (2009). Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds in a harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 4060-4070. Mathieu C (2015). Exploration well failures from the Moray Firth & Central North Sea (UK). 21st Century exploration road map project. Oil and Gas Authority presentation, 21pp. https://www.gov.uk/.../21CXRM_Post_Well_Analysis_Christian_Mathieu_talk.pdf Mattson MG, Thomas JA & Aubin DS (2005). Effects of boat activity on the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in waters surrounding Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. Aquatic Mammals 31: 133-140. MMO (2014). A strategic framework for scoping cumulative effects. A report produced for the Marine Management Organisation, MMO Project No: 1055, 224pp. Natural England & JNCC (2013). Joint Natural England and JNCC interim advice note presenting information to inform assessment of the potential magnitude and consequences of displacement of seabirds in relation of offshore windfarm developments, 10pp. Neff JM, Bothner MH, Maciolek NJ & Grassle JF (1989). Impacts of exploratory drilling for oil and gas on the benthic environment of Georges Bank. Marine Environmental Research 27: 77-114. New LF, Harwood J, Thomas L, Donovan C, Clark JS, Hastie G, Thompson PM, Cheney B, Scott-Hayward L & Lusseau D (2013). Modelling the biological significance of behavioural change in coastal bottlenose dolphins in response to disturbance. Functional Ecology 27: 314-322. ODPM (2005). Government circular: Biodiversity and geological conservation - statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system. ODPM Circular 06/2005. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, UK, 88pp. OGP (2011). An overview of marine seismic operations. Report No. 448, 44pp. Oil and Gas UK website (accessed May 2016) https://www.ukoilandgasdata.com/dp/controller/PLEASE_LOGIN_PAGE OSPAR (2009). Assessment of impacts of offshore oil and gas activities in the North-East Atlantic. OSPAR Commission, 40pp. OSPAR (2015). Guidelines to reduce the impacts of offshore installations lighting on birds in the OSPAR maritime area. OSPAR Agreement 2015-08. Patrick SC, Bearhop S, Bodey TW, Grecian WJ, Hamer KC, Lee J & Votier SC (2015). Individual seabirds show consistent foraging strategies in response to predictable fisheries discards. Journal of Avian Biology 46: 431-440. Pearson WH, Skalski JR & Malme CI (1992). Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on behaviour of captive rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49: 1357-1365. Pierpoint C (2008). Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) foraging strategy at a high energy, near-shore site in south-west Wales, UK. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 88: 1167-1173. Pirotta E, Merchant MD, Thompson PM, Barton TR & Lusseau D (2015). Quantifying the effect of boat disturbance on bottlenose dolphin foraging activity. Biological Conservation 181: 82–89 Pirotta E, Thompson PM, Miller PI, Brookes KL, Cheney B, Barton, TR, Graham IM & Lusseau D (2013). Scale- dependant foraging ecology of a marine top predator modelled using passive acoustic data. Functional Ecology 28: 206-217. Popper AN, Hawkins AD, Fay RR, Mann DA, Bartol S, Carlson TJ, Coombs S, Ellison WT, Gentry RL, Halvorsen MB, Løkkeborg S, Rogers PH, Southall BL, Zeddies DG & Tavolga WN (2014). Sound exposure guidelines for fishes and sea turtles: A technical report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI. 57 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Quick N, Arso M, Cheney B, Islas V, Janik V, Thompson PM & Hammond PS (2014). The east coast of Scotland bottlenose dolphin population: Improving understanding of ecology outside the Moray Firth SAC. Sea Mammal Research Unit and University of Aberdeen for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. URN 14D/086, 87pp. Reid JB, Evans PGH & Northridge SP (2003). Atlas of Cetacean distribution in north-west European waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Robinson KP, O’Brien JM, Berrow SD, Cheney B, Costa M, Eisfeld SM, Haberlin D, Mandleberg L, O’Donovan M, Oudejans G, Ryan C, Stevick PT, Thompson PM & Whooley P (2012). Discrete or not so discrete: long distance movements by coastal bottlenose dolphins in the UK and Irish waters. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 12: 365–371. Russell DJF, McConnell B, Thompson D, Duck C, Morris C, Harwood J & Matthiopoulos J (2013). Uncovering the links between foraging and breeding regions in a highly mobile mammal. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 499-509. Schwemmer P, Mendel B, Sonntag N, Dierschke V & Garthe S (2011). Effects of ship traffic on seabirds in offshore waters: implications for marine conservation and spatial planning. Ecological Applications 21: 1851- 1860. SCOS (2014). Scientific advice on matters related to the management of seal populations: 2014. Special Committee on Seals, 161pp. SEERAD (2000). Nature conservation: implementation in Scotland of EC directives on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna and the conservation of wild birds ("the Habitats and Birds Directives"). June 2000. Revised guidance updating Scottish Office circular no. 6/199. Skalski JR, Pearson WH & Malme CI (1992). Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-per- unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49: 1343-1356. SNH (2015). Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans: Guidance for plan-making bodies in Scotland – Version 3.0. Scottish Natural Heritage report no. 1739, 77pp. Southall BL, Bowles AE, Ellison WT, Finneran JJ, Gentry RL, Greene Jr. CR, Kastak D, Ketten DR, Miller JH, Nachtigall PE, Richardson WJ, Thomas JA & Tyack PL (2007). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33: 411-522. Stemp R (1985). Observations on the effects of seismic exploration on seabirds. In: Greene GD, Engelhardt FR & Paterson RJ (Eds) Proceedings of the workshop on effects of explosives use in the marine environment. Jan 29-31, 1985, Halifax, Canada. Stone CJ, Webb A, Barton C, Ratcliffe N, Reed TC, Tasker ML, Camphuysen CJ & Pienkowski MW (1995). An atlas of seabird distribution in north-west European waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Strachan MF (2010). Studies on the impact of a water-based drilling mud weighting agent (Barite) on some benthic invertebrates. PhD Thesis, Heriot Watt University, School of Life Sciences, February 2010. Strachan MF & Kingston PF (2012). A comparative study on the effects of barite, ilmenite and bentonite on four suspension feeding bivalves. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64: 2029-2038. Thaxter CB, Lascelles B, Sugar K, ASCP Cook, Roos S, Bolton M, Langston RHW & Burton NHK (2012). Seabird foraging ranges as a preliminary tool for identifying candidate Marine Protected Areas. Biological Conservation 156: 53–61. Thaxter CB, Ross-Smith VH, Clark NA, Conway GJ, Johnston A, Wade HM, Masden EA, Bouten W & Burton NHK (2014). Measuring the interaction between marine features of Special Protection Areas with offshore windfarm development sites through telemetry: final report. Report for The Department of Energy and Climate Change. Thompson PM, Brookes KL, Graham IM, Barton TR, Needham K, Bradbury G & Merchant ND (2013a). Short- term disturbance by a commercial two-dimensional seismic survey does not lead to long-term displacement of harbour porpoises. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280: 20132001. Thompson PM, Brookes KL, Cordes L, Barton TR, Cheeney B & Graham IM (2013b). Assessing the potential impact of oil and gas exploration operations on cetaceans in the Moray Firth. Final Report to DECC, Scottish Government, COWRIE and Oil & Gas UK, 144pp. Tillin HM, Hull SC & Tyler-Walters H (2010). Development of a sensitivity matrix (pressures-MCZ/MPA features). Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra Contract No. MB0102 Task 3A, Report No. 22, 947pp. Tillin HM & Tyler-Walters H (2014). Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities: Phase 2 Report – Literature review and sensitivity assessments for ecological groups for circalittoral and offshore Level 5 biotopes. JNCC Report 512B, 270pp.

58 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Tolley KA, Vikingsson G, Rosel P (2001). Mitochondrial DNA sequence variation and phylogeographic patterns in harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the North Atlantic. Conservation Genetics 2:349–361. Trannum HC, Setvik Å, Norling K & Nilsson HC (2011). Rapid macrofaunal colonization of water-based drill cuttings on different sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 2145–2156. UKMMAS (2010). Charting Progress 2: Healthy and Biological Diverse Seas Feeder Report. (Eds. Frost M & Hawkridge J) Published by Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of the UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy. 672pp. Wakefield ED, Cleasby IR, Bearhop S, Bodey TW, Davies R, Miller PI, Newton J, Votier SC & Hamer KC (2015). Long-term individual foraging site fidelity – why some gannets don’t change their spots. Ecology 96: 3058–3074. Wardle CS, Carter TJ, Urquhart GG, Johnstone ADF, Ziolkowski AM, Hampson G & Mackie D (2001). Effects of seismic air guns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research 21: 1005-1027. Wiese FK, Montevecchi WA, Davoren GK, Huettmann, F, Diamond AW & Linke J (2001). Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the North-west Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42: 1285-1290. Witt MJ, Sheehan EV, Bearhop S, Broderick AC, Conley DC, Cotterell P, Crow E, Grecian WJ, Halsband C, Hodgson DJ, Hosegood P, Inger R, Miller PI, Sims W, Thompson RC, Vanstaen K, Votier SC, Attrill MJ & Godley BJ (2012). Assessing wave energy effects on biodiversity: the Wave Hub experience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 370: 502–529.

59 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Appendix A – The Designated Sites

60 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

A1 Introduction

The following maps and tables show the locations of potentially relevant European sites and their qualifying features with respect to the Blocks offered as part of the 29th Seaward Licensing Round.

The primary sources of site data were the latest JNCC SAC29 (version as of 24th October 2016) and SPA30 (version as of 24th October 2016) summary data and interest features and site characteristics were filtered for their coastal and marine relevance. The websites of the relevant Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) were also reviewed to verify and augment site information including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)31 and Natural England32.

The sites in this Appendix are ordered thus:

A2 Coastal and marine Special Protection Areas

A3 Coastal and marine Special Areas of Conservation

A4 Offshore Special Areas of Conservation

A5 Riverine and freshwater Special Areas of Conservation

A6 Sites in the adjacent waters of other member states

A7 Ramsar sites

29 Version as of 15th September 2016 - http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1461 30 Version as of 15th September 2016 - http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1409

31 http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp

32 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/6490068894089216

61 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

A2 Coastal and Marine Special Protection Areas

Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). Sites are classified for rare and vulnerable birds and for regularly occurring migratory birds. The SPAs included in this section are coastal sites which have been selected for the presence of one or more of the bird species listed in Box A.1 (below). A number of marine SPAs, some of which provide marine extensions to existing sites, are presently at the proposed stage in Scottish inshore and offshore waters33. Ten of these sites were taken forward to public consultation in July 2016 (closed October 2016), with consultation on another four sites commencing in October 2016 (to conclude January 2017). Additionally, pSPAs are also present in English waters, and those of relevance to this screening are tabulated and shown in relevant maps below. Relevant SPAs in the adjacent waters of another Member State (Republic of Ireland) are included on Map A.1 and described in Section A6. Box A.1: Migratory and/or Annex I bird species for which SPAs are selected in the UK

Divers and grebes Waders Great northern diver Gavia immer Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Red-throated diver Gavia stellata Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Black-throated diver Gavia arctica Stone curlew Burhinus oedicnemus Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus Dotterel Charadrius morinellus Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritus Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Seabirds Knot Calidris canutus Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis Sanderling Calidris alba Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus Purple sandpiper Calidris maritima Storm petrel Hydrobates pelagicus Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina Leach's petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Ruff Philomachus pugnax Gannet Morus bassanus Snipe Gallinago gallinago Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo carbo Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa (breeding) Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica (non-breeding) Guillemot Uria aalge Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica Razorbill Alca torda Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Puffin Fratercula arctica Curlew Numenius arquata Redshank Tringa totanus Gulls, terns and skuas Greenshank Tringa nebularia Wood sandpiper Tringa glareola Arctic skua Stercorarius parasiticus Turnstone Arenaria interpres Great skua Stercorarius skua Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Mediterranean gull Larus melanocephalus

Black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus

33 http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-areas/proposed-marine-spas/

62 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Common gull Larus canus Waterfowl Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus Herring gull Larus argentatus Bewick's swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii Great black-backed gull Larus marinus Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus Sandwich tern Thalasseus sandvicensis Greenland white-fronted goose Anser albifrons flavirostris Roseate tern Sterna dougallii Icelandic greylag goose Anser anser Common tern Sterna hirundo Greenland barnacle goose Branta leucopsis Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea Svalbard barnacle goose Branta leucopsis Little tern Sternula albifrons Dark-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla Canadian light-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla hrota Svalbard light-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla hrota Crakes and rails Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Corncrake Crex crex Wigeon Anas penelope Gadwall Anas strepera Teal Anas crecca Birds of prey and owls Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus Pintail Anas acuta Hen harrier Circus cyaneus Shoveler Anas clypeata Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Pochard Aythya ferina Osprey Pandion haliaetus Tufted duck Aythya fuligula Merlin Falco columbarius Scaup Aythya marila Peregrine Falco peregrinus Eider Somateria mollissima Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis Common scoter Melanitta nigra Other bird species Velvet scoter Melanitta fusca Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Fair Isle wren Troglodytes troglodytes fridariensis Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Goosander Mergus merganser

63 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Map A.1: Location of SPAs – West of Scotland

64 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Map A.2: Location of SPAs – Northern North Sea

65 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Map A.3: Location of SPAs – Mid North Sea High

66 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Table A.1: SPAs and their Qualifying Features Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages NORTHERN ISLES Hermaness, 6832.36 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Saxa Vord Red-throated diver Gannet Seabirds and Valla Great skua Field SPA Puffin Bluemull and 3823.27 Breeding: N/A N/A Colgrave Red-throated diver Sounds pSPA Fetlar SPA 16964.69 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Arctic tern Dunlin Seabirds Red-necked phalarope Great skua Whimbrel Otterswick 2239.59 Breeding: N/A N/A and Red-throated diver Graveland SPA Ronas Hill- 5474.35 Breeding: Breeding: N/A North Roe Red-throated diver Great skua and Tingon Merlin SPA Papa Stour 569.6 Breeding: Breeding: N/A SPA Arctic tern Ringed plover East Mainland 25646.67 Breeding: Over winter: N/A Coast, Red-throated diver Eider Shetland Long-tailed duck pSPA Over winter: Red-breasted merganser Great northern diver Slavonian grebe Seas off Foula 341200 N/A Breeding: Breeding: pSPA Great skua Seabirds

Over winter: Seabirds Foula SPA 7985.49 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Arctic tern Great skua Seabirds Leach's storm petrel Guillemot Red-throated diver Puffin Shag Noss SPA 3338.38 N/A Breeding: Breeding: Gannet Seabirds Great skua Guillemot Mousa SPA 196.85 Breeding: N/A N/A Arctic tern Storm petrel Lochs of 140.66 Over winter: N/A N/A Spiggie and Whooper swan Brow SPA

34 A seabird assemblage of international importance: the area regularly supports at least 20,000 seabirds. Or, a wetland of international importance: the area regularly supports at least 20,000 waterfowl.

67 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages Sumburgh 2478.91 Breeding: N/A Breeding: Head SPA Arctic tern Seabirds Fair Isle SPA 6825.1 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Arctic tern Guillemot Seabirds Fair Isle wren Papa Westray 245.94 Breeding: Breeding: N/A (North Hill and Arctic tern Arctic skua Holm) SPA West Westray 3780.16 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: SPA Arctic tern Guillemot Seabirds North Rona & 6850.58 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Sula Sgeir Leach’s petrel Gannet Seabirds SPA Storm petrel Guillemot East Sanday 1508.2 Over winter: Over winter: N/A Coast SPA Bar-tailed godwit Purple sandpiper Turnstone Calf of Eday 2671.77 N/A N/A Breeding: SPA Seabirds Rousay SPA 5480.84 Breeding: N/A Breeding: Arctic tern Seabirds North Orkney 22695.17 Great northern diver Eider N/A pSPA Slavonian grebe Long-tailed duck Red-throated diver Velvet scoter Red-breasted merganser Shag Marwick Head 475.54 N/A Breeding: Breeding: SPA Guillemot Seabirds Orkney 5342.44 Breeding: N/A N/A Mainland Hen harrier Moors SPA Red-throated diver Short-eared owl

Over winter: Hen harrier Auskerry SPA 103.11 Breeding: N/A N/A Arctic tern Storm petrel Copinsay SPA 3607.7 N/A N/A Breeding: Seabirds Sule Skerry & 3909.45 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Sule Stack Leach’s storm petrel Gannet Seabird SPA Storm petrel Puffin Hoy SPA 18123.91 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Peregrine Great skua Seabirds Red-throated diver Switha SPA 57.0 Over winter: N/A N/A Barnacle goose Scapa Flow 37065.53 Breeding: Over winter: N/A pSPA Red-throated diver Shag Eider Over winter: Long-tailed duck Great northern diver Goldeneye Black-throated diver Red-breasted merganser Slavonian grebe

68 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages Pentland Firth 170.0 Breeding: N/A N/A Islands SPA Arctic tern Pentland Firth 97325 Breeding: N/A Breeding: marine pSPA Arctic tern Seabirds

WEST SCOTLAND Cape Wrath 6734.48 N/A N/A Breeding: SPA Seabirds North 223.46 Over winter: N/A N/A Sutherland Barnacle goose Coastal Islands SPA Ness & 647.54 Breeding: N/A N/A Barvas, Lewis Corncrake SPA Flannan Isles 5832.82 Breeding: N/A Breeding: SPA Leach’s petrel Seabirds Handa SPA 3205.61 N/A Breeding: Breeding: Guillemot Seabirds Razorbill Lewis 58959.88 Breeding: Breeding: N/A Peatlands Black-throated diver Dunlin SPA Golden eagle Greenshank Golden plover Merlin Red-throated diver Caithness & 145312.97 Breeding: Breeding: N/A Sutherland Black-throated diver Dunlin Peatlands Golden eagle Common scoter SPA Golden plover Greenshank Hen harrier Widgeon Merlin Red-throated diver Short-eared owl Wood sandpiper Seas off St 399500 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Kilda pSPA Storm petrel (as part of Gannet Seabirds an assemblage) Assynt Lochs 1158.19 Breeding: N/A N/A SPA Black-throated diver North Harris 13128.46 Breeding: N/A N/A Mountains Golden eagle SPA Inverpolly, 1937.05 Breeding: N/A N/A Loch Urigill Black-throated diver and Nearby Lochs SPA St Kilda SPA 29014.62 Breeding: Migrating: Breeding: Leach’s petrel Gannet Seabirds Storm petrel Great skua Puffin Priest Island 132.02 Breeding: N/A N/A SPA Storm petrel

69 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages The Shiant 6935.65 Over winter: Breeding: Breeding: Isles SPA Barnacle goose Razorbill Seabirds Puffin Shag Wester Ross 1989.82 Breeding: N/A N/A Lochs SPA Black-throated diver North Uist 4860.13 Breeding: Breeding: N/A Machair & Corncrake Dunlin Islands SPA Ringed plover Over winter: Oystercatcher Barnacle goose Redshank

Over winter: Ringed plover Turnstone Purple sandpiper Mointeach 4182.75 Breeding: N/A N/A Scadabhaigh Black-throated diver SPA Red-throated diver Monach Isles 600.07 Breeding: Breeding: N/A SPA Little tern Black guillemot Common tern

Over winter: Barnacle goose Aird & Borve, 359.03 Breeding: N/A N/A Benbecula Corncrake SPA West Coast of 132170.04 Breeding: Over winter: N/A the Outer Red-throated diver Eider Hebrides Long-tailed duck pSPA Over winter: Red-breasted merganser Great northern diver Black-throated diver Slavonian grebe South Uist 5027.31 Breeding: Breeding: N/A Machair & Corncrake Dunlin Lochs SPA Little tern Oystercatcher Redshank Ringed plover

Over winter: Ringed plover Sanderling Cuillins SPA 29503.25 Breeding: N/A N/A Golden Eagle Kilpheder to 379.64 Breeding: N/A N/A Smerclate, Corncrake South Uist SPA Eoligarry, 143.59 Breeding: N/A N/A Barra SPA Corncrake Canna and 6567.58 N/A N/A Breeding: Sanday SPA Seabirds

70 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages Rum SPA 46724.16 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Golden eagle Manx shearwater Seabirds Red throated-diver (proposed as a new feature, consultation ends September 2016) Mingulay & 7801.71 N/A Breeding: Breeding: Berneray SPA Razorbill Seabirds Coll SPA 2324.37 Over winter: N/A N/A Greenland white-fronted goose Barnacle goose Coll & Tiree 79475.15 Over winter: Over winter: N/A pSPA Great northern diver Eider Sléibhtean 1939.72 Over winter: Breeding: N/A agus Cladach Greenland white-fronted Dunlin Thiriodh goose Oystercatcher (Tiree Barnacle goose Redshank Wetlands & Ringed plover Coast) SPA Over winter: Turnstone Ringed plover Treshnish 241.77 Breeding: N/A N/A Isles SPA Storm petrel

Over winter: Barnacle goose Glas Eileanan 1.57 Breeding: N/A N/A SPA Common tern Cnuic agus 29242.12 Resident: N/A N/A Cladach Golden eagle Mhuile (Mull Coast and Hills) SPA North 3297.3 Breeding: N/A Breeding: Colonsay and Chough Seabirds Western Cliffs SPA Over winter: Chough Oronsay and 2016.85 Breeding: N/A N/A South Corncrake Colonsay SPA Chough

Over winter: Chough Jura, Scarba 34585.96 Resident: N/A N/A and the Golden eagle Garvellachs SPA Knapdale 113.86 Breeding: N/A N/A Lochs SPA Black-throated diver

71 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages Gruinart Flats, 3256.32 Breeding: Over winter: N/A Islay SPA Chough Canadian light-bellied brent goose Over winter: Barnacle goose Greenland white-fronted goose Chough Rinns of Islay 9434.09 Breeding: Breeding: N/A SPA Chough Common scoter Corncrake Hen harrier

On passage: Whooper swan

Over winter: Greenland white-fronted goose Chough Bridgend 332.08 Over winter: N/A N/A Flats, Islay Barnacle goose SPA Eilean na 577.27 Over winter: N/A N/A Muice Duibhe Greenland white-fronted (Duich Moss), goose Islay SPA Laggan, Islay 1225.62 Over winter: N/A N/A SPA Barnacle goose Greenland white-fronted goose Sound of 36326.83 Great northern diver Eider N/A Gigha pSPA Red-breasted merganser The Oa SPA 1930.84 Breeding: N/A N/A Chough NORTHERN IRELAND Rathlin Island 3344.62 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: SPA Peregrine Guillemot Seabirds Razorbill Kittiwake Lough Foyle 2204.36 Over winter: Over winter: Over winter: SPA Bar-tailed godwit Light-bellied brent goose Waterfowl Berwick’s swan Golden plover Whooper swan EAST SCOTLAND North 14628.77 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Caithness Peregrine Guillemot Seabird Cliffs SPA

72 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages Caithness and 145312.97 Breeding: Breeding: N/A Sutherland Black-throated diver Dunlin Peatlands Golden eagle Common scoter SPA Golden plover Greenshank Hen harrier Widgeon Merlin Red-throated diver Short-eared owl Wood sandpiper East 11696.37 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Caithness Peregrine Razorbill Seabird Cliffs SPA Herring gull Shag Kittiwake Guillemot Dornoch Firth 7856.54 Breeding: Over winter: Over winter: and Loch Osprey Greylag goose Waterfowl Fleet SPA Widgeon Over winter: Bar-tailed godwit Cromarty Firth 3247.95 Breeding: Over winter: Over winter: SPA Common tern Greylag goose Waterfowl Osprey

Over winter: Bar-tailed godwit Whooper swan Moray Firth 176235.95 Over winter: Breeding: N/A pSPA Great northern diver Shag Red-throated diver Slavonian grebe Over winter: Scaup Eider Long-tailed duck Common scoter Velvet scoter Common goldeneye Red-breasted merganser Troup, 3365.2 N/A Breeding: Breeding: Pennan and Guillemot Seabirds Lion's Heads Kittiwake SPA Moray and 2325.67 Breeding: Over winter: Over winter: Nairn Coast Osprey Greylag goose Waterfowl SPA Pink-footed goose Over winter: Redshank Bar-tailed godwit Loch of 616.26 Breeding: Over winter: Over winter: Strathbeg Sandwich tern Teal Waterfowl SPA Greylag goose Over winter: Pink-footed goose Whooper swan Barnacle goose Buchan Ness 5400.76 N/A N/A Breeding: to Collieston Seabirds Coast SPA

73 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages Ythan 1014.62 Breeding: Over winter: Over winter: Estuary, Common tern Pink-footed goose Waterfowl Sands of Little tern Forvie and Sandwich tern Meikle Loch SPA Ythan 6051.39 Breeding: N/A N/A Estuary, Sandwich tern Sands of Little tern Forvie and Meikle Loch (extension) pSPA Fowlsheugh 1303.23 N/A Breeding: Breeding: SPA Guillemot Seabirds Kittiwake Montrose 981.19 N/A Over winter: Over winter: Basin SPA Greylag goose Waterfowl Knot Pink-footed goose Oystercatcher Redshank Firth of Tay 6947.62 Breeding: Over winter: Over winter: and Eden Little tern Greylag goose Waterfowl Estuary SPA Marsh harrier Pink-footed goose Redshank Over winter: Bar-tailed godwit Outer Firth of 272068 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: Forth and St Common tern Shag Seabirds Andrews Bay Arctic tern Gannet Complex Over winter: pSPA Over-winter: Over-winter: Seabirds Red-throated diver Eider Waterfowl Little gull Slavonian grebe Forth Islands 9795.0 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: SPA Roseate tern Puffin Seabirds Common tern Lesser black-backed gull Sandwich tern Gannet Arctic tern Shag Firth of Forth 6317.69 Over winter: Over winter: Over winter: SPA Red-throated diver Pink-footed goose Waterfowl Bar-tailed godwit Turnstone Golden plover Knot Slavonian grebe Shelduck Redshank On passage: Sandwich tern Imperial Dock 0.11 Breeding: N/A N/A Lock, Leith Common tern SPA St Abb's Head 1736.75 N/A N/A Breeding: to Fast Castle Seabirds SPA

74 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages NORTHEAST ENGLAND Lindisfarne 3671.03 Breeding: On passage: Over winter: SPA Little tern Ringed plover Waterfowl

Over winter: Over winter: Bar-tailed godwit Grey plover Golden plover Greylag goose Whooper swan Knot Light-bellied brent goose Widgeon Farne Islands 101.23 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: SPA Arctic tern Guillemot Seabirds Common tern Puffin Roseate tern Sandwich tern Northumberla 88687 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: nd Marine Sandwich tern Puffin Seabirds pSPA Common tern Guillemot Arctic tern Roseate tern Little tern Coquet Island 19.92 Breeding: Breeding: Breeding: SPA Arctic tern Puffin Seabirds Common tern Roseate tern Sandwich tern Northumbria 1097.44 Breeding: Over winter: N/A Coast SPA Little tern Purple sandpiper Turnstone Teesmouth 1247.31 Breeding: On passage: Over winter: and Cleveland Little tern Ringed plover Waterfowl Coast SPA On passage: Over winter: Sandwich tern Knot Redshank North York 44053.29 Breeding: N/A N/A Moors SPA Golden plover Merlin Flamborough 8039.6 N/A Breeding: Breeding: and Filey Kittiwake Seabirds Coast pSPA Gannet Guillemot Razorbill Flamborough 212.17 N/A Breeding: Breeding: Head and Kittiwake Seabirds Bempton Cliffs SPA Hornsea Mere 232.25 N/A Over winter: N/A SPA Gadwall Greater Wash 360640.1 Breeding: Over winter: N/A pSPA Little tern Common scoter Sandwich tern Common tern

Over winter: Little gull Red-throated diver 75 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Article 4.2 Migratory Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 34 Species Assemblages Humber 37630.24 Breeding: Over winter: Non-breeding: Estuary SPA Bittern Dunlin Waterfowl Marsh harrier Knot Avocet Shelduck Little tern Black-tailed godwit Redshank Over winter: Bittern On passage: Avocet Knot Hen harrier Dunlin Bar-tailed godwit Black-tailed godwit Golden plover Redshank

On passage: Ruff

76 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

A3 Coastal and marine Special Areas of Conservation

This section includes coastal or nearshore marine (within 12nm boundary) Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) which contain one or more of the Annex I habitats listed in Box A.2 (below) or Annex II qualifying marine species. Relevant offshore (out with or crossing the 12nm boundary) SACs are included on the maps here and are described in Section A4. Riverine/freshwater SACs which are designated for migratory fish and/or freshwater pearl mussel are included on Maps A.4 to A.6 and considered in Section A5. Relevant SACs in the waters of adjacent Member States are also included on Maps A.4 to A.6 and described in Section A6.

Abbreviations for the Annex I habitats used in SAC site summaries (Tables A.2 and A.3) are listed in Box A.2.

Box A.2: Annex I Habitat abbreviations used in site summaries Annex I Habitat Annex I Habitat(s) (full description) (abbreviated) Bogs Blanket bogs * Priority feature Transition mires and quaking bogs Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion Active raised bogs * Priority feature Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration Bog Woodland * Priority feature Coastal dunes Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") * Priority feature Humid dune slacks Embryonic shifting dunes Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum nigrum * Priority feature Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea) * Priority feature Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (`grey dunes`) * Priority feature Coastal lagoons Coastal lagoons * Priority feature Estuaries Estuaries Fens Alkaline fens Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae * Priority feature Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) * Priority feature Forest Western acidic oak woodland Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) * Priority feature Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles *Priority feature Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines * Priority feature Old sessile oak woods and Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles Old sessile oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains

77 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Annex I Habitat Annex I Habitat(s) (full description) (abbreviated) Grasslands Alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels Siliceous alpine and boreal grasslands Species-rich Nardus grassland, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in continental Europe) * Priority feature Alpine pioneer formations of the Caricion bicoloris-atrofuscae * Priority feature Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia) (important orchid sites) * Priority feature Heaths Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix European dry heaths Alpine and Boreal heaths Dry Atlantic coastal heaths with Erica vagans Inlets and bays Large shallow inlets and bays Limestone pavements Limestone pavements * Priority feature Machairs Machairs Mudflats and sandflats Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide Reefs Reefs Rocky slopes Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation Calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to alpine levels (Thlaspietea rotundifolii) Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation Running freshwater Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation Salt meadows Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) Sandbanks Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time Scree Siliceous scree of the montane to snow levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and Galeopsietalia ladani) Calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to alpine levels (Thlaspietea rotundifolii) Scrub (mattoral) Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands Sea caves Submerged or partially submerged sea caves Sea cliffs Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts Standing freshwater Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition - type vegetation Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) Vegetation of drift line Annual vegetation of drift lines Vegetation of stony banks Perennial vegetation of stony banks

78 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Map A.4: Location of SACs – West of Scotland

79 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Map A.5: Location of SACs – Northern North Sea

80 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Map A.6: Location of SACs – Mid North Sea High

81 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Table A.2: SACs and their Qualifying Features Annex II Annex II Annex I Habitat Annex I Habitat Site Name Area (ha) Species Species Primary Qualifying Primary Qualifying NORTHERN ISLES Keen of Hamar SAC 39.87 Grasslands Heaths N/A N/A Scree Hascosay SAC 164.19 Bogs N/A N/A Otter

North Fetlar SAC 1585.18 Heaths N/A N/A N/A Fens Ronas Hill – North 4903.57 Standing Heaths N/A N/A Roe SAC freshwater Scree Heaths Bogs Yell Sound Coast 1544.44 N/A N/A Otter Lutra lutra N/A SAC Harbour seal Phoca vitulina Sullom Voe SAC 2691.43 Inlets and bays Coastal lagoons N/A N/A Reefs Mousa SAC 529.74 N/A Reefs Harbour seal N/A Sea caves Phoca vitulina Fair Isle SAC 561.05 Sea cliffs Heaths N/A N/A Sanday SAC 10976.97 Reefs Sandbanks Harbour seal N/A Mudflats and Phoca vitulina sandflats North Rona SAC 628.53 N/A Reefs Grey seal N/A Sea cliffs Halichoerus Sea caves grypus Faray and Holm of 781.33 N/A N/A Grey seal N/A Faray SAC Halichoerus grypus Stromness Heaths 638.26 Sea cliffs Fens N/A N/A and Coast SAC Heaths Loch of Stenness 792.59 Coastal lagoons N/A N/A N/A SAC Hoy SAC 9501.27 Sea cliffs Heaths N/A N/A Standing Fens freshwater Rocky slopes Heaths Bog WEST SCOTLAND Cape Wrath SAC 1009.75 Sea cliffs N/A N/A N/A Strathy Point SAC 207 Sea cliffs N/A N/A N/A Durness SAC 1213.8 Coastal dunes Coastal dunes N/A Otter Lutra lutra Standing Heaths freshwater Grasslands Grasslands Fens Limestone pavements Invernaver SAC 287.67 Coastal dunes Coastal dunes N/A N/A Heaths Fens Grasslands Oldshoremore & 446.2 Coastal dunes Coastal dunes N/A N/A Sandwood SAC Machairs Loch Laxford SAC 1214.54 Inlets and bays Reefs N/A N/A Lewis Peatlands 27955.02 Standing Heaths N/A Otter Lutra lutra SAC freshwater Bogs Bogs Loch Roag Lagoons 43.14 Coastal lagoons N/A N/A N/A SAC 82 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Annex II Annex II Annex I Habitat Annex I Habitat Site Name Area (ha) Species Species Primary Qualifying Primary Qualifying Tràigh na Berie SAC 153.54 Machairs N/A N/A N/A Caithness & 143561.47 Standing Heaths Otter Lutra lutra N/A Sutherland freshwater Bogs Marsh saxifrage Peatlands SAC Bogs Saxifraga hirculus Achnahaird SAC 21.55 N/A N/A Petalwort N/A Petalophyllum ralfsii Inverpolly SAC 11881.94 Standing Heaths Otter Lutra lutra Freshwater pearl freshwater Grassland mussel Heaths Scree Margaritifera Bogs Rocky slopes margaritifera Forest St Kilda SAC 25467.57 Reefs N/A N/A N/A Sea cliffs Sea caves Loch nam Madadh 2320.9 Coastal lagoons Sandbanks Otter Lutra lutra N/A SAC Inlets and bays Mudflats and sandflats Reefs North Uist Machair 3039.34 Salt meadows Vegetation of drift N/A Slender naiad SAC Machairs lines Najas flexilis Standing Coastal dunes freshwater Obain Loch Euphoirt 348.28 Coastal lagoons N/A N/A N/A SAC Monach Islands SAC 3646.56 Machairs Coastal dunes Grey seal N/A Halichoerus grypus Ascrib, Islay and 2577.99 N/A N/A Harbour seal N/A Dunvegan SAC Phoca vitulina Rigg - Bile SAC 499.64 Sea cliffs Forest N/A N/A South Uist Machair 3437.71 Machairs Coastal lagoons Slender naiad Otter Lutra lutra SAC Standing Vegetation of drift Najas flexilis freshwater lines Coastal dunes Inner Hebrides and 1353977 N/A N/A Harbour porpoise N/A the Minches cSAC Phocoena phocoena Sound of Barra SCI 12507.39 Sandbanks N/A N/A Harbour seal Reefs Phoca vitulina Rum SAC 10839.74 Standing Sea cliffs Otter Lutra lutra N/A freshwater Heaths Heaths Grasslands Grasslands Bogs Scree Fens Scree Rocky slopes East Mingulay SCI 11510.87 Reefs N/A N/A N/A Sound of Arisaig 4544.27 Sandbanks N/A N/A N/A (Loch Ailort to Loch Ceann Traigh) SAC Claish Moss and 1018.82 Bogs Bogs N/A N/A Kentra Moss SAC Sunart SAC 10230.22 Forest Reefs Otter Lutra lutra N/A Heaths Forest Coll Machair SAC 854.24 Coastal dunes Coastal dunes Slender naiad N/A Machairs Standing Najas flexilis freshwater 83 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Annex II Annex II Annex I Habitat Annex I Habitat Site Name Area (ha) Species Species Primary Qualifying Primary Qualifying Tiree Machair SAC 789.37 Coastal dunes Coastal dunes N/A N/A Machairs Standing freshwater Loch a’ Phuill SAC 152.44 Standing N/A N/A N/A freshwater Morvern Woods SAC 1924.86 Forests N/A N/A Otter Lutra lutra Treshnish Isles SAC 1962.66 N/A Reefs Grey seal N/A Halichoerus grypus Eileanan agus 1139.49 N/A N/A Harbour seal N/A Sgeiran Lios mor Phoca vitulina SAC Mull Oakwoods SAC 1405.45 Forests N/A N/A Otter Lutra lutra Ardmeanach SAC 378.33 Grassland Sea cliffs N/A N/A Firth of Lorn SAC 20999.35 Reefs N/A N/A N/A Moine Mhor SAC 1149.02 Bogs Mudflats and N/A Marsh fritillary sandflats butterfly Salt marshes and Euphydryas salt meadows (Eurodryas, Forests Hypodryas) aurinia Otter Lutra lutra Oronsay SAC 340.02 Machairs N/A N/A N/A Taynish and 1017.95 Forests Standing Marsh fritillary Otter Lutra lutra Knapdale Woods freshwater butterfly SAC Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia Tayvallich Juniper 1213.13 Scrub (matorral) N/A Marsh fritillary Otter Lutra lutra and Coast SAC butterfly Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia Glac na Criche SAC 263.36 Bogs Sea cliffs N/A Marsh fritillary Heaths butterfly Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia Tarbert Woods SAC 1576.29 Forests N/A N/A N/A Rinns of Islay SAC 1085.0 N/A N/A Marsh fritillary N/A butterfly Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia South-East Islay 1500.41 N/A N/A Harbour seal N/A Skerries SAC Phoca vitulina NORTHERN IRELAND Rathlin Island SAC 3344.62 Reefs Sandbanks N/A N/A Sea cliffs Vegetation of drift Sea caves lines Skerries and 10862 Reefs N/A N/A Harbour porpoise Causeway SCI Sandbanks Phocoena Sea caves phocoena

84 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Annex II Annex II Annex I Habitat Annex I Habitat Site Name Area (ha) Species Species Primary Qualifying Primary Qualifying North Antrim Coast 314.59 Sea cliffs Vegetation of drift Narrow-mouthed N/A SAC lines whorl snail Vertigo Salt marshes and angustior salt meadows Coastal dunes Grasslands Magilligan SAC 1058.22 Coastal dunes Coastal dunes N/A Marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii EAST SCOTLAND Mound Alderwoods 299.52 Forests N/A N/A N/A SAC Moray Firth SAC 151273.99 N/A Sandbanks Bottlenose dolphin N/A Tursiops truncatus Lower River Spey - 654.26 Vegetation of N/A N/A N/A Spey Bay SAC stony banks Forests Buchan Ness to 206.03 Sea cliffs N/A N/A N/A Collieston SAC Sands of Forvie SAC 735.48 Coastal dunes N/A N/A N/A Garron Point SAC 15.01 N/A N/A Narrow-mouthed N/A whorl snail Vertigo angustior Barry Links SAC 770.44 Coastal dunes N/A N/A N/A Firth of Tay and 15441.63 Estuaries Sandbanks Harbour seal N/A Eden Estuary SAC Mudflats and Phoca vitulina sandflats Isle of May SAC 356.64 N/A Reefs Grey seal N/A Halichoerus grypus St Abb's Head to 122.63 Sea cliffs N/A N/A N/A Fast Castle SAC NORTHEAST ENGLAND Tweed Estuary SAC 156.24 Estuaries N/A N/A Sea lamprey Mudflats and Petromyzon sandflats marinus River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Berwickshire and 65226.12 Mudflats and N/A Grey seal N/A North sandflats Halichoerus Northumberland Inlets and Bays grypus Coast SAC Reefs Sea caves North 1127.27 Coastal dunes N/A Petalwort N/A Northumberland Petalophyllum Dunes SAC ralfsii Durham Coast SAC 389.61 Sea cliffs N/A N/A N/A Beast Cliff - Whitby 265.48 Sea cliffs N/A N/A N/A (Robin Hood's Bay) SAC

85 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Annex II Annex II Annex I Habitat Annex I Habitat Site Name Area (ha) Species Species Primary Qualifying Primary Qualifying Flamborough Head 6320.87 Reefs N/A N/A N/A SAC Sea cliffs Sea caves Southern North Sea 3695766 N/A N/A Harbour porpoise N/A pSAC (extends Phocoena beyond 12nm) phocoena Humber Estuary 36657.15 Estuaries Sandbanks N/A River lamprey SAC Mudflats and Salt marshes and Lampetra sandflats salt meadows fluviatilis Coastal lagoons Sea lamprey Coastal dunes Petromyzon marinus Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Saltfleetby - 967.65 Coastal dunes Coastal dunes N/A N/A Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC

86 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

A4 Offshore Special Areas of Conservation

Table A.3: Offshore SACs and their Qualifying Features

Site Name Area (ha) Annex 1 Habitat Annex II Species

WEST OF SCOTLAND Wyville Thomson Ridge 173995 Reefs N/A cSAC/SCI Hatton Bank cSAC 1569433 Reefs N/A Darwin Mounds SAC 137726 Reefs N/A Solan Bank Reef 85593 Reefs cSAC/SCI North West Rockall Bank 436526 Reefs N/A cSAC/SCI East Rockall Bank 369489 Reefs N/A cSAC/SCI Anton Dohrn Seamount 142861 Reefs N/A cSAC/SCI Stanton Banks SAC 81727 Reefs N/A NORTHERN NORTH SEA Pobie Bank cSAC/SCI 96575 Reefs N/A Braemar Pockmarks SAC 518 Submarine structures N/A made by leaking gases Scanner Pockmark SAC 335 Submarine structures N/A made by leaking gases MID NORTH SEA HIGH Dogger Bank cSAC/SCI 1233115 Sandbanks N/A

87 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

A5 Riverine and Freshwater Special Areas of Conservation

Table A.4: Relevant riverine and freshwater SACs designated for migratory fish and/or the freshwater pearl mussel

Freshwater pearl mussel 1 Site name Migratory fish Margaritifera margaritifera WEST OF SCOTLAND River Borgie SAC  AS River Thurso SAC - AS River Naver SAC  AS Abhainn Clais An Eas and Allt  - a’Mhuilinn SAC Foinaven SAC  - Ardvar Loch a’ Mhuilinn Woodlands  - SAC Inverpolly SAC  - Langavat SAC - AS North Harris SAC  AS Little Gruinard River SAC - AS Ardnamurchan Burns SAC  - Mingarry Burn SAC  - River Roe and Tributaries SAC - AS River Foyle and Tributaries SAC - AS River Faughan and Tributaries SAC - AS NORTHERN NORTH SEA River Borgie SAC  AS River Thurso SAC - AS River Naver SAC  AS Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC - AS River Evelix SAC  - MID NORTH SEA HIGH Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC - AS River Oykel SAC  AS River Evelix SAC  - River Spey SAC  AS, SL River Dee SAC  AS River South Esk SAC  AS River Tay SAC - AS, SL, BL, RL River Tweed SAC - AS, SL, BL, RL

Note: 1AS= Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), SL= sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), BL= brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri), RL= river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis)

88 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

A6 Sites in waters of other member states

Offshore sites in adjacent states are listed in Table A.5 and A.6 below. Coastal sites in the Republic of Ireland and offshore sites in Germany and Netherlands are shown in Maps A.1, A.4, and A.6, and were considered in this screening assessment.

Table A.5: SPA sites in the adjacent waters of other Member States Article 4.2 Article 4.2 Site Name Area (ha) Article 4.1 Species 35 Migratory Species Assemblages WEST OF SCOTLAND Inishtrahull SPA 474.45 Barnacle goose Shag N/A Common gull Malin Head SPA 281.19 Corncrake N/A N/A Tory Island SPA 571.01 Corncrake Fulmar N/A Razorbill Puffin Trawbreaga Bay SPA 1549.83 Barnacle goose N/A Wetlands Brent goose Chough Horn Head to Fanad Head 2386.36 Barnacle goose Fulmar N/A SPA Peregrine falcon Cormorant

Chough Shag Greenland white- Kittiwake fronted goose Guillemot Razorbill Fanad Head SPA 136.13 Corncrake N/A N/A Inishbofin, Inishdooey and 601.43 Barnacle goose Common gull N/A Inishbeg SPA Corncrake Lesser black-backed Arctic tern gull Greers Isle SPA 19.14 Sandwich tern Black-headed gull N/A Common gull

Table A.6: SAC sites in the adjacent waters of other Member States Site Name Area (ha) Annex 1 Habitat Annex II Species WEST OF SCOTLAND South East Rockall Bank SAC 149318 Reefs N/A Inishtrahull SAC 471.23 Sea cliffs N/A Hempton’s Turbot Bank SAC 4495.88 Sandbanks N/A Tory Island Coast SAC 3045.74 Coastal lagoons * Priority N/A feature Reefs Vegetation of stony banks Sea cliffs

35 A seabird assemblage of international importance: the area regularly supports at least 20,000 seabirds. Or, a wetland of international importance: the area regularly supports at least 20,000 waterfowl.

89 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Site Name Area (ha) Annex 1 Habitat Annex II Species North Inishowen Coast SAC 7069.09 Mudflats and sandflats Narrow-mouthed whorl snail Vegetation of stony banks Vertigo angustior Sea cliffs Otter Lutra lutra Sand dunes Machairs (* in Ireland) Heaths Ballyhoorisky Point to Fanad 1293.04 Vegetation of stony banks Narrow-mouthed whorl snail Head SAC Sea cliffs Vertigo angustior Standing freshwater Slender naiad Najas flexilis Tranarossan and Melmore 653.63 Mudflats and sandflats Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii Lough SAC Vegetation of drift lines Vegetation of stony banks Sea cliffs Coastal dunes Machairs (* in Ireland) Standing freshwater Heaths Lough Nagreany Dunes SAC 221.15 Coastal dunes Slender naiad Najas flexilis Horn Head and Rinclevan 2344.32 Coastal dunes Geyer’s whorl snail Vertigo SAC Machairs (*in Ireland) geyeri Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii Slender naiad Najas flexilis Mulroy Bay SAC 3209.14 Inlets and bays Otter Lutra lutra Reefs Sheephaven SAC 1841.98 Mudflats and sandlfats Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii Salt meadows Sand dunes Machairs (* in Ireland) Forests MID NORTH SEA HIGH Doggerbank SAC (Germany) 169,895 Sandbanks Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena Harbour seal Phoca vitulina Doggersbank SCI 471,750 Sandbanks Harbour porpoise Phocoena (Netherlands) phocoena Harbour seal Phoca vitulina Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Klaverbank SCI (Netherlands) 123,733 Reefs Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena Harbour seal Phoca vitulina Grey seal Halichoerus grypus

90 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

A7 Ramsar sites

The coastal Ramsar sites listed in Table A.7 and shown on Map A.7 are also SPAs and/or SACs (although site boundaries are not always strictly coincident and a Ramsar site may comprise one or more Natura 2000 sites), see tabulation below.

Table A.7: Coastal Ramsar sites and corresponding Natura 2000 sites Ramsar Name SPA Name SAC Name WEST OF SCOTLAND Lewis Peatlands Lewis Peatlands Langavat Caithness & Sutherland Peatlands Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands Loch an Duin Loch nam Madadh North Uist Machair & Islands North Uist Machair and Islands North Uist Machair and Islands South Uist Machair and Lochs South Uist Machair and Lochs South Uist Machair Coll Coll Tiree Wetlands & Coast Tiree Wetlands & Coasts Tiree Machair

Tiree (corncrake) Loch a ’Phuill Gruinart Flats, Islay Gruinart Flats, Islay Rinns of Islay

Rinns of Islay Rinns of Islay Rinns of Islay Glac na Criche

Rinns of Islay Lough Foyle Lough Foyle NORTHERN NORTH SEA Ronas Hill – North Roe & Tingon Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon Ronas Hill – North Roe

Tingon East Sanday Coast East Sanday Coast Sanday Caithness & Sutherland Peatlands Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands MID NORTH SEA HIGH Moray and Nairn Coast Moray and Nairn Coast Culbin Bar

Lower River Spey – Spey Bay

Moray Firth

River Spey Loch of Strathbeg Loch of Strathbeg Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Sands of Forvie Loch Loch of Skene Loch of Skene Montrose Basin Montrose Basin Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary Barry Links

Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary Cameron Reservoir Cameron Reservoir Firth of Forth Firth of Forth Lindisfarne Lindisfarne Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast Northumbria Coast North Northumberland Dunes 91 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Ramsar Name SPA Name SAC Name Northumbria Coast Northumbria Coast Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Durham Coast

North Northumberland Dunes Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Northumbria Coast Durham Coast

Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Humber Estuary Humber Estuary Humber Estuary

Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point

92 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Map A.7: Location of coastal Ramsar sites

93 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Appendix B – Blocks and sites screened in

94 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

B1 Introduction

The following tables list those 29th Round Blocks and sites which have been screened in following application of the screening process described in Section 4. The Blocks and sites are listed according to the criteria by which they were screened in:

 Physical disturbance and drilling (Section 4.3, also see Figures 5.1 and 5.2)

 Underwater noise (Section 4.4, also see Figures 5.3 and 5.4)

These Blocks and sites will be subject to a second stage of HRA, Appropriate Assessment, before licensing decisions are taken.

95 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

B2 Physical disturbance and drilling

West of Scotland SPAs North Rona And 155/4 155/5 165/24 165/25 165/29 165/30 166/21 166/22 Sula Sgeir SPA 166/26 166/27 166/28 Cape Wrath SPA 156/9 156/10 156/14 156/15 Ness and Barvas, 155/13 155/14 155/15 155/17 155/18 155/19 Lewis SPA Lewis Peatlands 155/13 155/14 155/15 155/16 155/17 155/18 155/19 155/21 SPA 155/22 North Harris 154/29 154/30 Mountains SPA West Coast of the Outer Hebrides 134/7 154/29 154/30 pSPA Mingulay and 134/6 134/7 134/8 Berneray SPA Coll and Tiree pSPA 134/19 134/20 134/24 134/25 154/16 154/17 154/18 154/19 154/21 154/22 154/23 154/24 Flannan Isles SPA 154/27 154/28 152/19 152/20 153/11 153/12 153/13 153/14 153/15 153/16 Seas off St Kilda 153/17 153/18 153/19 153/20 153/21 153/22 153/23 153/24 pSPA 153/25 153/29 153/30 154/16 154/21 154/22 154/23 154/26 154/27 154/28 SACs North Rona SAC 165/25 165/30 166/21 166/22 166/26 166/27 Cape Wrath SAC 156/10 156/15 North Harris SAC 154/29 154/30 Loch Road Lagoons 154/25 155/16 155/17 155/21 155/22 SAC Tràigh na Berie SAC 154/25 155/21 East Mingulay SCI 134/7 134/8 134/13 164/2 164/3 164/4 164/5 164/10 165/1 165/2 165/3 Wyville Thomson 165/4 165/6 165/7 165/8 165/9 165/10 166/6 174/27 Ridge cSAC/SCI 174/28 174/29 174/30 175/21 175/22 175/26 175/27 175/28 164/2 164/3 164/4 164/5 164/6 164/7 164/8 164/9 Darwin Mounds SAC 164/10 164/11 164/12 164/13 164/14 164/15 165/1 165/2 165/6 165/7 165/11 165/12 Solan Bank Reef 156/3 156/4 156/5 156/8 156/9 156/10 166/23 166/24 cSAC/SCI 166/25 166/28 166/29 166/30 133/14 133/15 133/18 133/19 133/20 133/23 133/24 133/25 Stanton Banks SAC 133/29 133/30 134/11 134/16 134/17 134/18 134/21 134/22 134/23 134/24 134/26 134/27 134/28 Anton Dohrn 140/7 140/8 140/9 140/10 140/12 140/13 140/14 140/15 Seamount cSAC/SCI 140/17 140/18 140/19 140/20 140/22 140/23 140/24 140/25

96 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

140/28 140/29 140/30 141/6 141/7 141/8 141/11 141/12 141/13 141/16 141/17 141/18 141/19 141/21 141/22 141/23 141/26 141/27 128/1 128/2 128/3 128/4 128/5 128/6 128/7 128/8 128/9 128/10 129/1 138/4 138/5 138/10 138/15 138/19 138/20 138/23 138/24 138/25 138/27 138/28 138/29 138/30 East Rockall Bank 139/1 139/2 139/6 139/7 139/11 139/12 139/13 139/16 cSAC/SCI 139/17 139/18 139/21 139/22 139/26 139/27 148/6 148/11 148/16 148/17 148/18 148/19 148/21 148/22 148/23 148/24 148/25 148/27 148/28 148/29 148/30 149/21 149/26 149/27 138/1 138/2 138/3 138/4 138/5 138/6 138/7 138/8 North West Rockall 138/9 138/10 138/13 138/14 138/15 139/1 139/6 148/21 Bank cSAC/SCI 148/22 148/23 148/26 148/27 148/28 148/29 148/30 Northern North Sea SACs Braemar Pockmarks 16/2a SAC Mid North Sea High SPAs Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast 19/11 19/12 19/13 19/16 19/17 19/18 19/21 19/22 SPA Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and 19/16 19/17 19/21 19/22 Meikle Loch SPA Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and 18/30 19/16 19/17 19/21 19/22 19/26 Meikle Loch (extension) pSPA Loch of Strathbeg 19/11 19/12 SPA Fowlsheugh SPA 18/30 25/4 25/5 25/9 25/10 26/1 Montrose Basin SPA 25/8 25/9 25/13 25/14 Firth of Forth SPA 25/18 Firth of Tay and 25/13 25/18 Eden Estuary SPA Forth Islands SPA 25/24 Outer Firth of Forth 25/13 25/14 25/18 25/19 25/20 25/24 25/25 25/30 and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA 26/21 26/22 26/23 26/26 26/27 26/28 34/1 34/2 St Abb`s Head to 25/30 34/1 Fast Castle SPA Lindisfarne SPA 34/6 34/7 34/8 34/12 34/13 Farne Islands SPA 34/7 34/8 34/12 34/13 Northumberland 34/1 34/6 34/7 34/8 34/9 34/12 34/13 34/14 pSPA 34/17 34/20 34/25 Northumbria Coast 34/1 34/6 34/7 34/8 34/12 34/13 34/17 40/5 SPA Flamborough and 41/29a 41/29b 41/30 42/26 Filey Coast pSPA Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs 41/29a 41/29b 41/30 42/26 SPA 97 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

Hornsea Mere SPA 41/29a 41/30 Greater Wash pSPA 41/29a 41/30 42/26 SACs Buchan Ness to 19/12 19/16 19/17 19/21 19/22 Collieston SAC Sands of Forvie SAC 19/16 19/17 19/21 19/22 River Dee SAC 18/30 19/21 19/26 25/5 Garron Point SAC 18/30 25/4 25/5 River South Esk 25/8 25/9 25/13 SAC Barry Links SAC 25/13 25/18 Firth of Tay and 25/13 25/18 Eden Estuary SAC Isle of May SAC 25/24 St Abb’s Head to 25/30 34/1 Fast Castle SAC Tweed Estuary SAC 34/1 34/6 Berwickshire and 25/30 26/26 34/1 34/2 34/6 34/7 34/8 34/9 North Northumberland 34/12 34/13 34/14 34/17 Coast SAC River Tweed SAC 34/1 34/6 North Northumberland 34/1 34/6 34/7 34/8 34/12 34/13 34/17 Dunes SAC Durham Coast SAC 40/5 Flamborough Head 41/29a 41/29b 41/30 42/26 SAC 37/19 37/20 37/22 37/23 37/24 37/25 37/28b 37/29b Dogger Bank 37/30 38/16 38/17 38/21 38/22 38/23 38/24 38/25 cSAC/SCI 38/26 38/27 38/28 38/29 38/30 39/12 39/17 39/21 39/26 43/10 44/1 44/2 44/3 44/4 44/5 45/1 Doggersbank SCI 38/25 38/30 39/12 39/17 39/21 39/26 44/5 45/1 (Netherlands) 36/13 36/14 36/15 36/18 36/19 36/20 36/23 36/24 36/25 36/29 37/11 37/12 37/16 37/17 37/18 37/19 Southern North Sea 37/20 37/21 37/22 37/23 37/24 37/25 37/28b 37/29b pSAC 37/30 38/21 38/26 38/27 42/10c 42/13b 42/14a 42/17 42/26 42/27b 42/8a 42/9a 43/10 44/1 44/2 44/3

98 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

B3 Underwater noise

West of Scotland SPAs Cape Wrath SPA 156/9 156/10 156/14 156/15 Mingulay and 134/6 134/7 134/8 134/11 134/12 134/13 Berneray SPA Coll and Tiree pSPA 134/14 134/18 134/19 134/20 134/23 134/24 134/25 West Coast of the Outer Hebrides 134/6 134/7 154/24 154/25 154/29 154/30 pSPA 154/16 154/17 154/18 154/19 154/21 154/22 154/23 154/24 Flannan Isles SPA 154/26 154/27 154/28 154/29 152/15 152/19 152/20 153/11 153/12 153/13 153/14 153/15 Seas off St Kilda 153/16 153/17 153/18 153/19 153/20 153/21 153/22 153/23 pSPA 153/24 153/25 153/29 153/30 154/16 154/21 154/22 154/23 154/24 154/26 154/27 154/28 154/29 St Kilda SPA 153/29 SACs 156/1 156/2 165/25 165/30 166/21 166/22 166/23 166/26 North Rona SAC 166/27 166/28 Durness SAC 156/10 156/15 North Harris SAC 154/29 154/30 Mid North Sea High SPAs Buchan Ness to 19/11 19/12 19/13 19/16 19/17 19/18 19/21 19/22 Collieston Coast SPA 19/23 Fowlsheugh SPA 18/30 19/26 25/4 25/5 25/9 25/10 26/1 26/6 Forth Islands SPA 25/18 25/24 Outer Firth of Forth 25/8 25/9 25/13 25/14 25/18 25/19 25/20 25/24 and St Andrews Bay 25/25 25/30 26/16 26/17 26/21 26/22 26/23 26/26 Complex pSPA 26/27 26/28 34/1 34/2 34/6 Farne Islands SPA 34/6 34/7 34/8 34/9 34/12 34/13 34/14 34/17 Northumberland 34/1 34/2 34/3 34/4 34/6 34/7 34/8 34/9 pSPA 34/12 34/13 34/14 34/15 34/17 34/20 34/25 Flamborough and 41/29a 41/29b 41/30 42/26 Filey Coast pSPA Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs 41/29a 41/29b 41/30 42/26 SPA SACs River Dee SAC 18/30 19/21 19/26 25/5 River South Esk 25/8 25/9 25/13 25/14 SAC Firth of Tay and 25/13 25/18 Eden Estuary SAC Isle of May SAC 25/18 25/24 99 Potential Award of Blocks in the 29th Seaward Licensing Round: Screening Assessment

River Tweed SAC 34/1 34/6 34/7 34/12 Tweed Estuary SAC 34/1 34/2 34/6 34/7 Berwickshire and 25/30 26/26 34/1 34/2 34/3 34/6 34/7 34/8 North Northumberland 34/9 34/12 34/13 34/14 34/17 Coast SAC Doggersbank SCI 38/25 38/30 39/12 39/17 39/21 39/26 44/4 44/5 (Netherlands) 45/1 36/13 36/14 36/15 36/18 36/19 36/20 36/23 36/24 36/25 36/29 37/11 37/12 37/13 37/16 37/17 37/18 Southern North Sea 37/19 37/20 37/21 37/22 37/23 37/24 37/25 37/28b pSAC 37/29b 37/30 38/16 38/21 38/22 38/26 38/27 42/10c 42/13b 42/14a 42/17 42/26 42/27b 42/8a 42/9a 43/10 44/1 44/2 44/3

100

© Crown copyright 2016 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW www.gov.uk/beis